THE  J.  PAUL  GETTY  MUSEUM  LIBRARY 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/antiquerugsfromnOObode 


THE  AMERICAN  HANDBOOKS 
ON  FINE  AND  APPLIED  ARTS 


ANTIQUE  RUGS  FROM 
THE  NEAR  EAST  BY 
WILHELM  BODE  AND 
ERNSTKOHNEL 


/ / 


\ 


1 


% 


Prayer  Rug,  Asia  Minor,  about  1500. 
Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum,  Berlin. 


ANTIQUE  RUGS 

FROM  THE  NEAR  EAST 

BY 

WILHELM  BODE 


THIRD  REVISED  EDITION 
WITH  CONTRIBUTIONS  BY 
ERNST  KOHNEL 


TRANSLATED  BY 
R.  M.  RIEFSTAHL  PH.  D. 

NK 

•2^0  0 


E.  WEYHE 

710  LEXINGTON  AVENUE 
NEW  YORK 
1922 


THE  J.  PAUL 


GETTY  MUSEUM  LIBRARY 


Preface  to  the  second  edition 


When  “Antique  Rugs  from  the  Near  East"  appeared  in  1902,  it  was  the  first 
comprehensive  monograph  on  this  subject.  Since  that  time  new  handbooks 
on  “antique  Oriental  rugs“  were  issued  almost  yearly.  However,  these  have  done 
little  to  broaden  our  knowledge  of  the  classic  period  of  this  industry  as  they  are 
usually  published  by  dealers  and  are  generally  limited  to  the  later  specimens  which 
are  current  in  the  trade.  The  scientific  study  of  the  history  of  rugs  has  been  ad- 
vanced mainly  by  the  publications  of  the  great  exhibitions  of  Mohammadan  art  and 
by  the  comprehensive  work  of  F.  R.  Martin,  “A  History  of  Oriental  Carpets  be- 
fore 1800“. 

The  first  edition  gave  new  points  of  departure  to  research  and  materially  in- 
creased the  interest  of  museums  and  collectors  in  antique  rugs.  However,  research 
of  late  years  has  afforded  supplementary  information  and  in  some  respects  the  first 
volume  has  been  superseded  by  more  recent  works.  Consequently  in  our  new 
edition  we  substituted  well  founded  hypotheses  for  worn  out  theories.  Such  a 
process  is  necessary  as  there  are  practically  no  irrefutable  facts  in  this  field.  At  the 
same  time,  we  have  arranged  the  text  in  separate  chapters  to  organize  the  volume 
more  clearly  and  to  emphasize  its  character  as  a handbook.  The  illustrations  were 
also  looked  over  and  several  of  the  less  important  examples  were  discarded,  while 
other,  particulary  characteristic  rugs  which  became  well  known  at  the  Munich  Ex- 
hibition, 1910,  were  substituted.  In  addition,  questions  of  ownership  were  verified  as 
far  as  possible.  In  the  final  proofs  we  used  information  regarding  the  rugs  belonginq 
to  American  collectors,  for  which  we  are  indebted  to  Dr.  Valentiner. 

The  reader  will  find  the  most  important  changes  in  the  text  of  the  first  edition 
in  the  discussion  of  the  vase  rugs  and  the  Armenian-Asia  Minor  groups.  Besides 
other  incidental  additions,  new  material  has  been  used  in  the  discussion  of  the 
Polish  rugs  in  tapestry  weave,  the  Konia  rugs,  the  late  Damascus  patterns,  the  so- 
called  Armenian  forerunners  and  successors  of  the  Sefevi  patterns  and  in  the  chapter 
on  Indo-Persian  rugs.  On  the  other  hand,  we  have  entirely  dropped  the  Spanish 
group  which  was  discussed  very  thoroughly  before,  as  it  is  not  strictly  within  the 
subject.  The  detailed  description  of  several  examples  remains  entirely  unchanged. 
Nor  is  there  a noticeable  increase  in  the  number  of  the  paintings  which  the  author 
was  the  first  to  use  very  extensively  in  the  identification  of  certain  patterns. 


W.  Bode. 


E.  Kiihne!. 


Preface  to  the  third  Edition. 

The  most  recent  developments  in  the  study  of  antique  rugs  and  the  discovery 
of  new  examples  have  necessitated  numerous  corrections  and  additions  in  the 
text  of  the  third  edition.  Besides  these  changes,  we  have  embodied  in  the  present 
text  information  which  has  been  given  by  Dr.  R.  M.  Riefstahl  in  the  English  edition 
of  this  handbook,  now  being  published  by  E.  Weyhe,  New  York.  We  have  espe- 
cially taken  account  of  Dr.  Riefstahls  notes  regarding  rugs  owned  by  American 
museums  and  private  collectors. 

The  text  and  illustrations  have  been  separated  in  order  to  simplify  reference 
to  the  reproductions.  In  addition,  several  particularly  important  specimens  have  been 
added  to  the  list  of  illustrations  (Figs.  19,  25,  38,  45,  51,  69). 

W.  Bode.  E.  Kuhnel. 


Preface  by  the  Translator 


American  collectors  have  often  expressed  the  desire  of  having  a translation  of 
“Vorderasiatische  Knupfteppiche” , the  handbook  by  Bode  and  Kuhnel,  which 
is,  and  remains,  the  leading  handbook  on  the  early  Oriental  rugs.  The  present 
translation  follows  the  German  text  as  faithfully  as  possible  and  is  the  same  as 
that  of  the  German  third  edition.  In  some  cases  the  translator,  living  in  America, 
was  able  to  give  some  new  information  which  has  been  placed  in  the  “Notes  by 
the  Translator”  at  the  end  of  the  book  and  has  partly  been  used  in  the  third  German 
edition. 

The  translator  followed  a systematic  terminology  in  the  designation  of  the  diffe- 
rent parts  of  a rug.  The  words  "border"  and  “center  field”;  “main  border”,  “small 
borders",  and  “guard  stripes”;  “ground  of  the  rug“,  “central  medallion”,  “attached 
medallion”,  “corner  motif",  are  always  used  strictly  in  the  same  sense.  The  “car- 
touche rug"  means  the  type  of  composition  which  is  called  “compartment  rug"  in 
the  catalogue  of  the  Victoria  and  Albert  Museum. 

In  several  cases  the  translator  obtained  information  about  matters  which  he  was 
not  able  to  decide  by  himself.  Mr.  A.  F.  Kendrick  of  the  Victoria  and  Albert  Museum 
in  London  kindly  gave  information  about  several  matters.  The  translator  also 
wishes  to  express  his  thanks  to  Mr.  C.  F.  Williams  in  Norristown,  Pa.,  to  Mr.  John 
^ ELjMcIlheppjLj  in  Philadelphia  and  to  Mr.  P.  M.  Sharpies,  Westchester,  Pa. 

New  York,  June  1,  1922. 


R.  M.  Riefstahl  Ph.  D. 


Contents 


Preface  to  the  second  and  third  Editions 5 

Preface  by  the  Translator t 7 

Introduction 9 

The  Persian  Animal  Rugs 15 

Hunting  Rugs  — Silk  Animal  Rugs  — Woolen  Animal  Rugs 

Persian  Rugs  with  floral  Patterns 25 

Medallion  Patterns  — Herat  Patterns  — Prayer  Rugs  — Vase  Patterns  — Garden 
Patterns 

Persian,  so-called  Polish  Rugs 30 

Knotted  Polish  Rugs  — Polish  Rugs  in  Tapestry  Weave 

Indo-Persian  Rugs 35 

So-called  Armenian  Rugs 37 

Animal  Patterns  — Patterns  with  Flower  Brandies  — Rugs  Inspired  by  Sefevi  Patterns 

Early  Anatolian  Rugs 41 

The  Konia  Rugs  — Animal  Rugs  in  Old  Paintings 

So-called  Ushak  Rugs  from  Asia  Minor 44 

Smyrna  Rugs  — The  Ushak  Patterns  — Prayer  Rugs  — Rugs  with  a white  Ground 

Rugs  from  Asia  Minor;  so-called  Holbein  Rugs 51 

Patterns  with  Conventionalized  Vines  — So-called  Holbein  patterns 

So-called  Damascus  Rugs 54 

Patterns  with  Kaleidoscopic  Forms  — Turkish  Plant  Patterns  — Turkish  Prayer  Rugs 

Concluding  Remarks 58 

Notes  by  the  Translator 63 


Introduction 


Many  of  us  will  still  remember  the  impression  produced  by  "antique  Persian" 
rugs  when,  in  the  seventies,  they  were  introduced  by  foreign  agents 
The  artists  were  the  first  to  throw  out  the  insipidly  colored  Brussels  carpets  and 
to  replace  them  with  richly  toned  Oriental  rugs.  The  art  loving  public  soon  fol- 
lowed their  example.  Everyone  was  eager  to  acquire  several  small  prayer  rugs  for 
use  on  tables  and  floors,  or  as  coverings  for  sofas  and  cushions.  Indeed,  it  was 
a distinction  to  own  valuable  specimens  of  the  famous  Persian  antique  knotted  work, 
as  these  rugs  were  termed  in  the  art  trade. 

The  interest  thus  awakened  in  Oriental  rugs  and  the  growing  delight  in  colorful 
interior  decoration,  soon  brought  the  attention  of  the  antique  trade  to  truly  old 
specimens.  These  appeared  in  different  places  — in  the  Orient  itself,  particularly 
in  Turkey  and  several  adjacent  countries,  and  also  in  Italy,  Spain  and  Portugal. 
Even  earlier,  silk  carpets  were  eagerly  purchased  by  several  wealthy  collectors  who 
laid  especial  emphasis  upon  the  magnificent  and  artistic  furnishing  of  their  houses. 
Other  rugs,  which  had  usually  been  discarded  by  churches  and  palaces  because  of 
their  more  or  less  damaged  condition,  could  be  secured  very  cheaply  in  Spain, 
southern  Germany  and  especially  in  Italy.  These  were  gladly  purchased  by  various 
museums  and  by  artists  who  used  them  in  furnishing  their  studios. 

Thus  scholars  gradually  became  interested  in  Oriental  rugs  and  began  to  study 
them,  though  only  incidentally  and  with  hesitation.  It  became  evident  that  the  very 
numerous  specimens  which  dealers  brought  to  Europe  from  the  East  were  almost 
all  modern.  But  on  the  other  hand,  old  paintings  frequently  bore  reproductions  of 
rugs  which  were  identical  with  a few  in  the  antique  trade.  Then  the  philologists 
began  to  study  the  inscriptions  which  appeared  in  many  rugs.  Such  material,  as 
well  as  existent  information  from  historical  sources,  were  used  for  the  determination 
of  age.  The  comparison  of  the  decoration  of  rugs  with  that  of  architecture,  metal 
work,  pottery,  textiles  and  other  manifestations  of  Oriental  art,  gave  further  indi- 
cations. On  the  other  hand,  modern  rugs  made  in  the  different  regions  of  the  Near 
East  and  Central  Asia  were  used  to  determine  the  origin  of  the  antique  specimens. 
This  method  was  especially  popular  among  the  large  rug  dealers  who  did  buying 
and  manufacturing  in  those  regions.  Several  exhibitions  and  subsequent  publications 
particularly  furthered  the  understanding  and  interest  in  Oriental  rugs-above  all, 
the  great  Vienna  Rug  Exhibition  of  1891,  followed  by  the  important  publication 
devoted  to  this  exhibition  and  by  a supplementary  volume  in  1907.  In  1908  Martin’s 
history  of  Oriental  carpets  appeared  and  finally  in  1911  came  the  publication  on 
the  Mohammadan  exhibition  in  Munich. 

Among  the  various  methods  of  research,  that  of  studying  the  inscriptions  had 
seemed  to  be  the  most  useful  and  dependable,  as  it  is  in  the  field  of  Mohammadan 
architecture,  metal  work  etc.  But  this  method  has  thus  far  shown  itself  fruitless, 


10 


Bode-Kuhnel,  Antique  Rugs  from  the  near  east. 


if  not  untrustworthy.  Up  to  the  present  time  only  two  rugs  have  been  found  with 
an  unquestionable  date  (1539  A.  D.  Cf.  Fig.  24  and  1584  A.  D.  of  page  . . ).  The 
attempts  at  more  exact  dating  of  other  specimens  which  seemed  to  have  significant  dates 
or  inscriptions,  have  always  met  with  strong  doubts  and  even  been  proved  partially 
wrong,  although  such  research  has  been  staged  with  a great  expenditure  of  learning. 
Copies  of  the  19  th  century  and  inferior  later  pieces  have  been  declared  to  be  five 
hundred  years  old.  These  errors  are  explained  by  the  unusual  difficulties  which  research 
encounters.  Inscriptions  on  rugs  are  rare  and  as  a rule  difficult  to  read,  for  the  Orientals 
love  to  conventionalize  their  letters  or  to  hide  them  in  plant  and  animal  forms. 
The  meaning,  too,  is  difficult  to  understand  unless  the  inscriptions  consist  only  of 
unimportant  Koranic  verses  or  sentences,  as  is  usually  the  case.  If  an  exceptional 
specimen  appears  with  the  statement  of  a fact,  the  inscription  generally  gives  the 
name  of  a man  who  ordered  the  rug,  or  that  of  the  ruler  of  some  state.  These 
are  easily  confused,  as  the  names  are  frequently  repeated  and  localities  are  practi- 
cally never  mentioned.  We  must  also  remember  that  rugs  with  inscriptions  have 
long  been  copied  — especially  those  for  purposes  of  worship.  Such  copies  were 
made  in  different  periods,  but  the  modern  imitations  of  old  rugs  are  particularly 
faithful.  This  is  a further  difficulty  for  research. 

More  practical  than  the  philological  discussion  of  inscriptions  is  the  comparison 
of  the  earlier  rugs  with  various  other  Near  Eastern  crafts.  The  latter  very  often 
contain  an  exact  date,  while  in  certain  periods  and  in  certain  regions  the  same 
forms  of  decoration  are  found  simultaneously  on  rugs  and  on  works  of  other  crafts. 
But  here,  also,  research  encounters  definite  limitations,  which  are  only  too  easily 
overlooked  and  occasion  false  conclusions.  Sometimes  certain  ornaments  are  a 
result  of  the  technique.  Hence  they  often  recur  with  scarcely  perceptible  changes  in 
the  most  widely  separated  periods.  Then,  too,  Oriental  art  is  very  conservative. 
For  instance,  the  decorative  motives  found  in  the  earliest  woven  work  of  Meso- 
potamia have  been  maintained  more  or  less  faithfully  for  thousands  of  years  up  to 
modern  times,  despite  the  tremendous,  almost  elemental  revolutions  which  have  con- 
tinually recurred  and  the  agitations  which  unavoidably  ensued.  Wars  and  deva- 
stations in  the  train  of  invading  hordes  shook  art  and  industry  to  their  very  found- 
ations and  maintained  a continuous  ascent  and  descent  of  civilization.  Such  agitations 
have  repeatedly  produced  similar  changes  in  the  textile  industries  — a period  of 
deep  decline  and  then  a slow  reawakening.  Therefore,  because  of  the  old  traditions 
and  models,  rugs  of  different  periods  appear  of  the  same  technique  and  pattern. 
Hence  it  is  difficult,  especially  in  the  earlier  specimens,  to  recognize  whether  a 
certain  rug  shows  the  degenerate,  coarse  characteristics  of  decadence,  or  the  rough 
primitivity  of  an  art  which  is  again  waking  to  life.  Superficial  and  unintelligent 
modern  reproductions  are  frequently  considered  as  examples  of  an  old,  primitive 
art,  while  characteristic  specimens  from  earlier  epochs  are  taken  for  rough  reproduc- 
tions from  a later  time. 

Much  valuable  historical  information  had  been  expected  from  the  study  of 
modern  rug  manufacture  in  the  Near  East.  It  was  hoped  to  establish  the  traditions 
of  the  old  patterns  in  the  designs  now  woven  in  different  districts  of  Asia  Minor, 
Persia,  Turkestan,  Transcaucasia  and  other  regions  of  the  Near  East,  and  through 
studying  them  to  discover  the  place  where  the  antique  rugs  were  made.  Thus  far 
the  results  of  this  research  are  disappointing.  We  must  not  forget  that  it  is  princi- 
pally the  dealers  who  immediately  recognize  a kindred  and  familiar  modern  pattern 
in  the  old  rugs.  Without  any  knowledge  of  history  they  ascribe  the  old  rugs  to 
the  place  where  the  similar  pattern  is  still  made.  However,  such  conclusions  are 


Introduction. 


11 


only  to  be  drawn  with  the  greatest  care,  and  only  when  a tradition  of  centuries 
can  be  proved  for  rug  knotting  in  a given  <;ity  or  region. 

The  nomadic  life  of  many  tribes  of  the  Near  East,  the  great  changes  and 
migrations  of  several  periods,  the  terrible  devastations  which  frequently  destroyed 
entire  tribes  and  their  habitations,  as  well  as  the  old,  scarcely  altered  trading  routes 
and  their  lively  commerce  for  thousands  of  years,  made  possible  the  interruption  of 
an  old  established  industry  in  one  district  and  the  migration  and  continuation  of 
famous  patterns  in  other  regions  which  were  often  widely  separated.  We  will  see 
later  that  this  can  actually  be  proved  for  a number  of  the  most  interesting  types  of 
rugs.  In  this  branch  of  research,  too,  almost  no  comparative  study  has  been  done 
on  the  spot. 

Thus  far  the  study  of  specimens  appearing  on  paintings  has  proved  to  be  one 
of  the  most  trustworthy  and  fruitful  sources  of  our  knowledge  of  Near  Eastern  rugs. 
In  the  present  short  essay  on  the  evolution  of  the  older  rug  industry  in  the  Near 
East  the  author  has  used  his  own  preliminary  studies  in  this  field.  Besides  the 
rugs  themselves,  the  study  of  the  rugs  on  paintings  forms  the  basis  of  his  con- 
clusions. This  study  is  still  particularly  interesting  because  it  shows  the  importance 
to  the  Occident  of  both  antique  rugs  and  Oriental  textiles.  It  is  evident  both  in  the 
decorative  and  fine  arts,  but  is  particularly  remarkable  in  the  development  of  great 
schools  of  colorist  paintings — the  Venetian,  and  to  some  extent,  the  Dutch  school. 

It  is  well  known  how  much  Venice  has  been  open  to  the  influences  of  Oriental 
art  because  of  her  close  connection  with  the  East  since  the  time  of  the  Crusades. 
A glance  at  the  Venetian  paintings  of  the  15th  century  shows  the  city  of  lagoons 
in  half  Oriental  attire.  In  every  representation  of  Venetian  festivals  and  processions, 
in  the  numerous  pictures  with  views  of  the  city  or  motives  from  the  interior  of 
houses,  Oriental  rugs  hang  as  festive  decoration  from  windows  and  balconies.  Rugs 
are  used  on  the  floors  and  tables  in  the  private  house  as  well  as  in  the  public  pa- 
lace; even  the  gondolas  were  canopied  and  covered  with  them.  The  churches  were 
particularly  richly  decorated  with  rugs.  Upon  the  steps  of  the  altars,  before  the  seats 
of  the  priests,  and  over  the  balustrades  lay  the  beautiful  rugs  of  the  Orient  and  offered 
an  exquisite  pleasure  to  the  eyes  of  all.  Inspired  by  the  gorgeous  fabrics,  glass- 
wares, inlaid  metal  vessels,  leather  work  and  other  examples  of  domestic  art  which 
for  centuries  had  been  imported  from  the  East  or  were  made  by  “Turkish11  artisans 
in  the  Turkish  quarter  of  Venice  (later  in  the  Fondaco  de’  Turchi)  the  applied 
arts  developed  surprisingly  in  Venice  itself.  At  the  same  time,  the  eye  of  the 
painter  was  educated  in  this  environment.  Out  of  a prosaic,  colorless  school  of 
painting  there  developed  in  a few  decades  the  greatest  colorist  school  in  the 
history  of  art.  Those  who  are  acquainted  with  the  Oriental  rugs  of  the  15  th  cen- 
tury will  feel  in  the  pictures  of  the  contemporary  Venetians  the  same  instinct  for 
the  combination  and  choice  of  colors.  Only  the  great  masters  of  the  16th  century, 
Giorgone  and  Titian,  freed  Venetian  painting  from  this  dependence  upon  the  deco- 
rative arts  of  the  East  and  made  it  entirely  self  sufficient. 

It  was  not  only  Venetian  art  whose  coloristic  development  was  essentially  in- 
fluenced by  the  harmonies  of  the  Near  Eastern  rugs.  The  Near  East  continued  to 
prove  its  creative  power  two  centuries  later  when  an  art  based  on  color  developed 
on  this  side  of  the  Alps.  This  influence  is  felt  in  the  Flemish,  and  still  more  in 
the  Dutch  school.  In  the  16th  century,  Persian  rugs  were  especially  prominent 
among  the  many  products  of  the  Orient,  imported  indirectly  into  the  Netherlands  in 
the  course  of  her  relations  with  Spain.  But  in  the  following  century  the  trade 
with  Persia,  as  well  as  the  establishment  of  trading  stations  in  Asia  Minor,  brought 


12 


Bode-Kuhnel,  Antique  Rugs  from  the  near  east. 


rugs  to  the  Low  Countries  in  greater  numbers,  A glance  upon  the  manifold  re- 
presentations of  Dutch  interiors  will  prove  how  frequently  Persian  rugs  were  used 
on  tables  and  floors  in  the  houses  of  the  upper  middle  class  at  that  time.  And 
they  were  especially  common  in  the  houses  of  painters,  as  one  can  conclude  from 
the  frequent  appearance  of  Oriental  rugs  of  different  patterns  in  their  pictures.  It 
was  not  only  the  Dutch  artists  who  were  unconsciously  influenced  by  such  colourful 
objects  in  their  surroundings.  At  the  same  period,  the  English,  too,  felt  a desire 

to  decorate  their  homes  with  Oriental  rugs.  We  know  how  much  they  did  to  re- 

vive the  rug  industry  in  India.  And  by  means  of  this  interest  in  rugs  they  kept 
alive  their  sense  for  vigorous  and  powerful  color,  which  in  Germany  had  long  been 
dead.  During  the  first  half  of  the  last  century  the  rugs  of  the  latter  country  had 
shown  an  accumulation  of  harsh  and  discordant  colors,  which  was  followed  by  a 

fashion  for  anemic  pastel  shades.  Only  the  art  of  very  recent  years  has  sought  to 

overcome  this  defect.  The  intensive  study  of  Oriental  art  has  contributed  a good 
deal  to  this  movement. 

J.  Lessing  in  his  well  known  publication  "Antique  Oriental  Rug  Patterns”,  1877, 
was  the  first  to  state  that  only  a few  examples  of  antique  Oriental  rug  knotting  had 
been  preserved.  He  was  also  the  first  to  approach  this  subject  in  a scientific  way. 
Riegl,  too,  held  fast  to  this  belief  in  his  book  "Altorientalische  Teppiche’ , 1891. 
This  view  was  refuted,  however,  by  the  great  exhibition  of  rugs  in  the  Commercial 
Museum  in  Vienna  in  1891  and  recently  by  the  Exhibition  of  the  Masterpieces  of 
Mohammadan  Art  in  Munich,  1910.  In  the  first  of  these  exhibitions  almost  150, 
and  in  the  latter  over  200  antique  rugs  were  placed  on  exhibition.  In  view  of 
the  considerable  number  and  variety  of  specimens  there  was  no  unanimity  among 
experts  regarding  the  difficult  questions  of  age  and  origin.  They  seemed  rather  to 
despair  of  ever  finding  a solution.  However,  matters  are  no  longer  in  such  an  un- 
fortunate state.  Although  we  cannot  as  a rule  date  the  rugs  within  the  year  or 
the  decade,  nevertheless  we  have  reliable  evidence  which  enables  us  to  give  the 
exact  century  for  practically  all  specimens.  For  the  sake  of  clarity  one  must  put 
aside,  first  of  all,  countless  of  the  less  valuable  and  only  incidentally  picturesque 
and  charming  examples  from  the  end  of  the  18th  and  19th  centuries,  as  well  as 
modern  imitations.  We  must  then  attempt  to  survey  the  material  available  for 
study  in  museums,  palaces,  church  treasures,  in  private  collections  and  in  the  art 
trade. 

Perhaps  the  most  comprehensive  collection  of  antique  Oriental  rugs  and  the 
most  interesting  because  of  its  number  of  very  early  pieces  belongs  to  the  Mo- 
hammadan department  of  the  Berlin  Museum.  This  department  is  still  lodged  in 
the  Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum  and  is  later  to  be  taken  over  into  the  Asiatic  Museum, 
now  in  process  of  construction.  The  collections  of  the  Austrian  Museum  of  Art  and 
Industry  in  Vienna,  the  National  Museum  in  Munich,  the  Manufacture  des  Gobelins 
and  the  Museum  of  Decorative  Arts  in  Paris,  the  Historical  Textile  Museum  in  Lyon, 
the  Metropolitan  Museum  in  New  York  the  Museums  in  Boston,  Cleveland  and 
San  Francisco  and  above  all  the  collection  of  the  Victoria  and  Albert  Museum  in 
London,  (which  has  particularly  valuable  pieces  in  the  very  best  condition),  are 
of  equal  importance  and  useful  because  of  their  careful  exhibition.  The  collection 
of  the  Poldi  Pezzoli  Museum  in  Milan  and  that  of  the  Berlin  Museum  of  De- 
corative Art,  which  both  possess  a beautiful  animal  rug,  are  also  rich  in  treasures. 
The  Ewkaf  Museum  in  Constantinople,  the  Czartoryski  Museum  in  Cracow,  the 
Museums  of  Decorative  Art  in  Cologne,  Dresden,  Leipzig  and  Budapest,  the 
Cluny  Museum  in  Paris  and  others,  have  at  least  several  good  and  interesting 


Introduction. 


13 


pieces.  The  houses  of  almost  all  members  of  the  Rothschild  family,  especially 
those  in  Vienna  and  Paris,  are  rich  in  magnificent  examples,  A number  of  ex- 
cellent rugs  are  also  owned  by  Professor  Friedrich  Sarre  and  other  collectors  in 
Berlin,  Dr.  Fritz  Harck  in  Seusslitz,  W.  von  Seidlitz  in  Dresden,  Baron  Heinrich  von 
Tucher  in  Nuremberg  and  by  several  Austrian  patrons  of  art,  in  particular  Prince 
Liechtenstein,  Prince  Schwarzenberg , Count  Clam-Gallas,  Dr.  Figdor  and  others. 
In  the  United  States  the  collections  of  B.  Altmann  and  Isaac  D.  Fletcher  are  now 
in  the  Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art.  The  rugs  of  the  Theodore  Davis  Estate  and 
of  the'  Joseph  Lees  William  Memorial  Collection  are  loaned  to  the  Metropolitan 
Museum  in  New  York.  We  may  further  mention  the  collections  of  James  F.  Ballard 
in  St.  Louis,  James  Deering  in  Miami,  Florida,  J.  F.  Mocllhenny  in  Philadelphia, 
E.  H.  Myers  in  Washington.  Mrs.  H.  Pratt  in  New  York,  Dr.  Denman  Ross  of  Cam- 
bridge, Mass.,  P.  M.  Sharpies  in  Westchester,  Pa.,  P.  A.  Widener  in  Philadelphia, 
Senator  Clark  in  New  York1.  The  painter  E.  Goupil  owned  a small,  very  choice 
collection,  including  several  silk  rugs  which  are  illustrated  in  the  catalogue  of  the 
public  sale  of  his  collection  in  1888.  The  Yerkes  Collection  in  New  York  was 
one  of  the  most  important  private  collections  ever  brought  together  and  was 
sold  at  auction  after  the  death  of  the  owner.  A larger  number  of  pieces,  especially 
interesting  from  a historical  point  of  view,  are  owned  by  the  author.  Besides, 
there  are  several  church  treasures,  especially  those  in  Italy — the  Cathedral  at  Padua, 
S.  Francesco  at  Brescia  and  many  others — which  still  have  isolated  examples  of 
good  antique  rugs,  even  though  the  hunt  for  such  things  during  the  last  twenty 
years  has  considerably  diminished  their  number.  The  collections  of  various  dealers 
who  only  a few  years  ago  had  a valuable  stock  of  antique  rugs,  have  now  been 
almost  completely  bought  out.  Only  Stefano  Bardini  in  Florence,  Kelekian  in  Paris 
and  New  York  and  Beghian  and  Kafaroff,  both  in  Constantinople,  Bernheimer  in 
Munich,  have  still  a certain  number  of  antique  pieces.  Not  a few  of  the  important 
rugs  have  found  their  way  into  the  stocks  of  great  New  York  dealers,  such  as  Du- 
veen  Brothers  and  French  & Co.  w.. 

Out  of  this  abundance  a closer  study  reveals  a number  of  none  too  numerous 
types  which  repeat  themselves  with  slight  variations.  The  origin  and  development  of 
these  types  during  the  course  of  two  or  three  centuries  can  be  proved  through 
the  representations  of  rugs  in  old  paintings.  Several  of  these  types  were  so 
widespread  and  have  maintained  themselves  for  so  long  that  they  still  appear  in 
many  dozen  specimens;  others  appear  to  be  unique  and  perhaps  only  originated 
through  particular  circumstances.  This  book,  does  not  embrace  a complete  history 
of  the  art  of  rug  knotting  in  the  Near  East  and  perhaps  we  will  never  have  the 
necessary  foundation  for  such  a history.  However,  the  antique  rugs  which  have 
been  preserved  are  almost  entirely  from  the  16th  to  the  18th  centuries,  and  only  a 
fewdate  bade  to  the  15th.  There  are  only  two  or  three  rugs  known  which  could  be- 
long to  a still  earlier  period — to  the  13th  century.  Up  to  this  same  century  we  can 
also  trace  them  in  pictures  and  miniatures.  On  the  other  hand,  isolated  rug-like 
designs  upon  Sassanian  silver  vessels  or  Assyrian  reliefs  cannot  be  claimed  with  cer- 
titude as  knotted  rugs,  as  they  were  presumably  executed  in  tapestry  technique.  Then, 
too,  the  descriptions  left  by  ancient  authors  of  the  magnificent  rugs  of  the  early  middle 
ages  are  too  much  adorned  by  the  flowery  speech  of  the  Orient  to  evoke  even  a fairly 
clear  idea  of  the  originals.  Thus  the  sources  of  exact  information  for  the  history 
of  rugs  in  the  Near  East  are  exhausted.  They  only  give  the  barest  framework  for 
the  history  of  the  evolution  of  rugs.  For  this  reason  our  historical  survey  must 
be  limited  to  the  more  recent  period.  While  discussing  rugs  from  the  16th  and 


14 


Bode-Kuhnel,  Antique  Rugs  from  the  near  east. 


17th  centuries,  only  a few  weak  and  uncertain  gleams  of  light  will  be  thrown  upon 
the  darkness  of  the  previous  primitive  periods. 

Save  for  the  hanging  rugs  in  the  mosques,  the  Orientals  have  used  the  knotted 
rugs  exclusively  as  a floor  covering,  both  today  and  in  ancient  times.  Hence  we 
are  not  concerned  with  all  kinds  of  wall  hangings,  pillow  coverings  etc.  The  costly 
knotted  rugs,  have  always  lain,  and  still  lie  today,  in  the  middle  of  the  room.  This 
makes  it  possible  for  anyone  seated  on  the  divans  running  about  the  wall  to  rest 
his  eyes  on  this  masterpiece,  the  pride  of  the  house.  When  walking  about  their 
rooms  the  Orientals  use  only  the  small  woolen  runners  of  coarser  workmanship 
which  run  along  the  sides  of  the  main  rug  in  the  center. 

For  the  knotting  technique2,  as  well  as  for  similar  general  questions  which 
concern  rug  handicraft,  the  reader  is  referred  to  “Altorientalische  Knupfteppiche", 
the  very  scholarly  work  of  A.  Riegl.  For  the  sake  of  completeness  let  us  quote 
his  excellent  description  of  the  technique. 

“Wherever  rug  knotting  is  still  done  in  the  Orient,  the  technique  is  practically 
the  same.  This  results  from  the  simplicity  of  the  process.  The  worker  grasps  two 
warp  threads  strung  next  to  each  other  and  lays  across  them  a short  piece  of  yarn, 
about  two  and  a half  inches  long  and  usually  of  wool8.  He  then  pulls  the  two 
ends  of  the  yarn,  first  behind  the  warp  threads  and  then  between  both  of  these 
back  again  to  the  front.  Both  ends  of  the  thread  therefore  rise  above  the  warp 
like  a double  tuft  which  is  secured  in  place  by  a simple  encircling  of  the  warp 
threads.  Thereupon,  the  worker  seizes  the  next  pair  of  warp  threads  and  repeats 
the  same  process,  and  so  on,  all  along  the  entire  width  of  the  warp.” 

“When  a row  of  tufts  has  been  knotted  in,  the  weave  has  to  be  consolidated. 
As  yet,  only  the  two  adjoining  warp  threads  are  held  together  by  encircling  them 
with  the  same  strand  of  woolen  yarn.  The  warp  threads  have  to  be  joined  together 
into  a firmly  constructed  weave  by  the  insertion  of  one,  or  generally  two  wefts, 
as  in  plain  linen  weaves.  The  weft  thus  inserted  is  pressed  closely  down  upon 
the  row  of  tufts  and  in  this  manner  the  weaver  not  only  obtains  a resistant  texture, 
but  counteracts  the  loosening  of  the  individual  tufts.” 

“ To  simplify  the  work,  the  strands  set  aside  for  knotting  are  given  a length 
which  makes  it  easy  to  interlace  them  between  the  warp  threads.  The  practical,  as 
well  as  the  artistic  value  of  a knotted  rug  increases,  if  the  nap  is  cut  short  as  in 
velvet,  and  not  left  rather  long,  as  in  plush.  After  the  cutting,  the  weave  must 
be  pressed  closely  together  with  a comb,  as  in  a loose  weave  the  wefts  between 
the  rows  of  tufts  might  appear  on  the  surface  and  the  short  knotted  tufts  might 
work  loose.” 


The  Persian  Hnimal  Rugs 


Among  antique  Oriental  rugs  the  silk  rugs  with  animal  representations  deserve 
particular  interest  because  of  their  costly  material,  their  beautiful  coloring  and 
their  excellent  design.  We  have  neither  dated  specimens  nor  any  other  documen- 
tary evidence  to  prove  their  date  or  place  of  origin;  nevertheless,  there  is  full 
agreement  about  these  points.  For  this  reason  the  animal  rugs  are  a particularly 
fit  starting  point  for  our  investigation. 

The  largest  and  most  magnificent  piece  of  this  group  and  the  most  famous 
antique  rug  at  the  present  day  is  the  so-called  “Hunting  rug”,  formerly  in  the 
possession  of  the  Austrian  Imperial  family  and  now  property  of  the  Austrian  State 
The  “Hunting  rug”  (fig.  1,  2)  owes  its  name  to  the  peculiar  composition  of  mounted 
hunters  which  adorns  the  large  center  field.  The  salmon-colored  ground  is  decorated 
with  numerous  flowers  attached  to  delicate  vines.  Some  of  these  flowers  are  native 
to  Persia,  others  show  forms  of  refined  conventionalization.  On  this  ground 
horsemen  move  to  and  fro,  pursuing  lions,  antelopes,  ibexes,  wild  boars,  hares, 
foxes,  jackals  and  other  wild  animals.  The  horsemen  may  be  recognized  as  Persian 
by  their  costume,  likewise  the  horses  and  their  trappings  are  characteristically  Persian 
and  all  the  wild  animals  are  of  that  country.  The  two  winged  figures  which  recur 
regularly  on  the  red  ground  of  the  broad  border  among  delicate  vines  with  flowers, 
buds  and  leaves,  may  be  characterized  from  their  costumes  as  Persian  “genii”. 
Representation,  conception  and  conventionalization  of  the  plants,  as  well  as  the 
drawing  of  the  animal  and  human  figures  and  their  costumes  correspond  throughout 
with  the  decoration  of  miniatures,  metal  and  leather  work,  and  with  other  Persian 
minor  arts.  The  composition  and  design  of  the  rug  — the  proportion  of  the  center 
field  to  the  main  border  with  its  accompanying  small  borders  on  the  inner  and 
outer  side;  the  round,  scalloped  middle  shield  with  smaller  attached  medallions 
running  the  length  of  the  rug,  the  wedge-shaped  corner  pieces  conceived  as  quarter 
divisions  of  the  center  field,  even  the  characteristic  masks  (lions’  and  mens’  heads) 
inside  the  large  flowers  which  occur  in  the  outer  border,  all  have  analogies  in  other 
branches  of  Persian  decorative  art  of  the  middle  ages. 

In  the  large  middle  shield  and  in  the  four  corner  pieces  which  exactly  corre- 
spond, we  see  a fight  of  fabulous  animals  represented  on  a ground  of  floral  sprays. 

Two  dragons  turned  back  to  back,  each  show  their  teeth  to  a mythical  giant 
bird  which  swoops  upon  them.  This  representation  is  repeated  four  times  in  the 
center  of  the  rug  in  tasteful,  symmetrical  composition.  Such  phantastic  creatures 
have  nothing  to  do  with  Persia.  Indeed,  the  first  glance  shows  that  they  are 
borrowed  from  Far  Eastern  legend  and  art.  The  dragon  in  combat  with  the 
phoenix  is  one  of  the  most  famous  decorative  motive  in  all  kinds  of  Chinese  works 
of  art.  It  has  been  interpreted  as  the  official  symbol  of  the  Ming  dynasty  which 
ruled  China  from  1368  for  almost  three  centuries.4  In  addition  to  this  motif  there 


16 


Bode-Kiihnel,  Antique  Rugs  from  the  near  east. 


are  other  Far  Eastern  elements  in  this  hunting  rug.  A peculiar  gnarled  ornament 
appears  in  various  forms  and  runs  inconspicuously  through  the  decoration  of  the 
border.  It  is  not  at  all  Persian.  It  is  one  of  the  most  important  symbols  of  Chinese 
mythology  — the  emblem  of  immortality  — the  “Tsdii”.  It  is  variously  formed: 
either  small,  scalloped,  compactly  massed  like  a shell,  drawn  out  like  a ribbon,  or 
surrounded  by  conventionalized  clouds  and  lightning.  It  corresponds  exactly  with 
the  sacred  fungus  of  true  Chinese  conception.  A glance  at  any  collection  of  Chinese 
art'  of  the  Ming  period  or  later  will  prove  this  conclusively. 

There  is  another  hunting  rug  closely  related  to  this  magnificent  piece.  It  has 
almost  the  same  dimensions  and  is  also  executed  in  silk  and  silver.  This  rug  is 
owned  by  Baron  Maurice  Rothschild  in  Paris  (Fig.  3)  and  was  found  in  Italy.  About 
1879  the  Marchese  Torrigiani  of  Florence  sold  it  for  $30  to  the  antiquarian  Stefano 
Bardini  who  sold  it  later  to  Baron  Adolphe  Rothschild  for  $ 6000.  Today  this  rug 
would  be  worth  almost  $ 200000.  The  composition  is  the  same  as  in  the  Vienna 
rug.  The  center  field  also  shows  mounted  Persian  hunters,  although  the  figures  are 
less  numerous.  The  round  middle  shield  has  similar  small  attached  medallions  above 
and  below.  Instead  of  the  dragon  it  shows  phantastically  formed  panthers  battling 
with  the  phoenix  or  simurg,  which  in  the  corner  pieces  is  represented  alone.  In  the 
border  we  see  three  nearly  identical  groups  in  which  a noble  Persian  is  served  by 
a retainer.  The  ground  of  the  center  field  is  of  a magnificent  dark  green.  It  is 
decorated  with  flowers,  buds  and  leaves  on  slender  vines,  while  the  border  shows 
shrubs  of  more  realistic  form  — blooming  almond  and  magnolia  trees  with  bright 
birds  in  the  brandies  under  which  the  figures  move.  The  Chinese  “Tschi”  is  hidden 
in  the  outer  small  border,  where  it  is  combined  with  flying  cranes  and  very  deli- 
cately conventionalized  plant  motives.  The  cranes,  too,  are  found  on  other  rugs  of 
the  same  group;  this  is  one  more  proof  that  they  are  also  borrowed  from  Chinese 
legend  and  art. 

In  the  Royal  Palace  in  Stockholm  is  a third  hunting  rug  in  silk  and  gold,  similar 
to  the  one  just  mentioned.  It  has  only  a few  animal  motives  on  the  red  back- 
ground and  the  yellow  border.  A smaller  one,  with  woolen  pile,  in  the  Maciet 
collection  in  Paris  (Fig.  4)  shows  the  degeneration  of  this  type.5  In  the  centre 
field  — quite  as  in  the  Indian  group  — balanced  composition  has  entirely  dis- 

appeared. The  design  of  the  animals  and  plants  is  coarser  and  shows  much  less 
care;  the  conventionalization  of  the  flowers  and  leaves  has  much  less  character. 
As  in  the  other  rugs,  the  centre  field  shows  Persian  hunters;  in  the  lower  corners 
the  large  phoenix  appears.  Dr.  R.  M.  Riefstahl  claims  that  these  are  five  scenes  of 
the  famous  “Khamse“  of  Nizami,  each  scene  being  represented  twice.  In  the  border, 
a round  medallion  with  a crouching  Persian  alternates  with  a genie  kneeling  in  a 
large  flower,  and  repeated  between  them  is  an  antelope  surprised  by  a panther.  In 
a woolen  rug  of  the  former  Yerkes  collection  purchased  at  the  sale  by  I.  B.  Trevor,6 
the  hunting  motif  becomes  confined  to  the  central  medallion.  The  field  shows  ani- 
mal fights.  The  latter  also  recur  in  the  rosaces  in  the  deep  blue  border  alternating 
with  figural  medallions.  A rug  with  human  figures  closely  related  to  those  mentioned 
before  was  exhibited  in  the  Petrograd  Retrospective  Exhibition  of  Decorative  Art  of 
1904  as  a loan  of  Prince  Sanguschko.  (Plate  18  in  the  publication  of  the  Exhi- 
bition by  Prachoff,  1907).  This  rug  was  said  to  have  been  captured  in  1621 

from  a Turkish  tent.  The  central  motif  shows  the  broad  arabesque  which 

usually  appears  in  the  borders,  combined  with  four  medallions  with  human  figures. 
In  the  attached  medallions  appear  musicians  and  genii;  in  the  corner  motives, 
mounted  hunters;  in  the  field,  fighting  animals,  and  in  the  elaborate  border,  we  find 


The  Persian  animal  rugs. 


17 


peacocks  in  opposite  reprensentation,  standing  figures,  the  dragon  fighting  with  the 
phoenix  and  other  scenes  with  fighting  animals. 

The  velvet-like  woolen  rug  in  the  Poldi  Pezzoli  Museum  in  Milan  (Fig.  5),  is  particu- 
larly valuable  because  of  its  material,  its  technical  perfection  and  faultless  condition  down 
to  the  very  fringe.  It  has  no  hunting  scene  in  the  center  field,  but  is  otherwise 
very  closely  related  to  the  two  famous  hunting  rugs.  Besides  its  high  artistic  and 
decorative  value,  it  has  a particular  interest  because  of  its  unusual  richness  in 
Chinese  motives.  There  are  no  corner  pieces  in  this  rug  and  the  round  central 
medallion,  without  any  attached  medallions,  takes  up  comparatively  little  space.  It 
is  decorated  with  birds  among  flower  vines  while  the  innermost  star  shows  cloud 
bands.  Blooming  trees  stand  symmetrically  on  the  flowered,  rose-colored  ground 
with  birds  and  monkeys  swinging  in  their  branches,  while  tigers  and  dragons  attack 
each  other  at  their  roots. 

The  Chinese  element  is  represented  at  either  end  of  the  rug  by  flying  cranes 
among  cloud  bands  intermingled  with  a good  deal  of  “Tschi”.  In  the  corners  and 
in  the  center  we  also  find  masses  of  this  holy  Chinese  fungus  of  unusual  form. 
However,  the  most  striking  representation  is  found  at  either  side  above  the  central 
medallion,  taking  the  place  and  shape  of  the  usual  attached  medallions.  Two  Persian 
genii,  a flower  upon  their  heads  instead  of  the  usual  crown,  crouch  before  a vase 
with  fan-like,  flower  decorated  ornaments,  arched  over  by  a phantastic  canopy 
decorated  with  flowers  and  birds.  Despite  the  purely  Persian  form  and  dress  of 
the  genii  they  are  quite  obviously  the  fanciful  reproduction  of  a Chinese  sacrificial 
altar,  while  the  flowers  before  the  altar  are  a transformation  of  the  Chinese  globe- 
pattern,  the  “Tschintamani”. 

The  finial  of  this  composition  likewise  proves  that  this  interpretation  is  not  too 
daring.  It  is  in  the  shape  of  a canopy  and  copies  the  bat  symbol,  although  in  a 
distorted  and  phantastic  form.  The  decoration  of  this  canopy  — two  ducks  between 
clouds  and  Tschi  motives  — is  another  proof  of  Far  Eastern  influence.  The  border 
shows  large  palmetto  flowers  connected  by  ornate  undulated  ribbons  filled  in  with 
animal  motives. 

The  very  subjects  represented  make  it  probable  that  such  magnificent  rugs  were  made 
in  silk  and  silver  or  in  woolen  pile  for  a Persian  noble,  perhaps  indeed,  for  the  Shah 
himself.  A number  of  highly  skilled  workers  would  need  several  decades  for  the 
production  of  such  a rug,  which  even  at  that  time  cost  many  thousands.  We  have 

not  heard  of  other  rugs  so  large  and  costly  as  these,  but  perhaps  in  time  one 

piece  or  another  may  be  discovered  in  the  harem  of  sultans  and  other  rulers  and 

nobles  of  the  Near  East.  “Animal  rugs”  in  the  true  sense  of  the  word,  have  been 

preserved  in  comparatively  large  numbers.  They  are  of  the  same  technique  and  with 
similar  decoration,  save  that  they  are  almost  entirely  without  human  figures.  But 
there  are  more  of  them  in  the  palaces  of  princes  and  wealthy  men  of  the  Occident 
and  in  several  museums,  than  in  the  Orient  itself.  They  are  either  in  silk, 
some  with  interwoven  silver  threads,  or  in  wool.  The  latter  are  usually  of  large  size. 

A silk  animal  rug  of  smaller  measurements,  but  remarkable  for  its  faultless  con- 
dition, was  lent  by  Prince  Lobanow  to  the  Vienna  Rug  Exhibition,  where,  with  the 
imperial  “hunting  rug”,  it  was  greatly  admired.  It  now  belongs  to  the  Stieglitz 
Museum  in  Petrograd  (Figs.  6 and  7).  Its  discovery  in  one  of  the  palaces  of  the 
sultan  is  of  particular  interest.  Composition  and  decoration  are  especially  reminiscent 
of  the  magnificent  title  pages  and  sumptuous  bindings  of  Persian  manuscripts.  It 
would  hence  seem  very  probable  that  the  illuminators  made  the  designs  for  the 
court  rugs.  In  other  details  it  resembles  the  two  large  hunting  rugs,  save  that 

Bode-Kiihnel.  2 


18 


Bode-Kuhnel,  Antique  Rugs  from  the  near  east. 


there  are  no  human  figures,  which  are  always  rare  in  Near  Eastern  rugs.  Wild 
animals  among  delicate  flower  vines  occupy  the  center  field  of  this  rug  which 
shows  dragons,  panthers,  tigers,  fallow  deer  and  jackals  looking  at  and  pursuing 
each  other.  The  centermost  star  medallion,  which  is  round  with  a wavy  edge, 
is  entirely  filled  with  plant  decoration.  The  corners  show  birds  among  flower 
vines-parrots,  pheasants,  and  cranes  seized  by  falcons.  The  border  bears  large 
elongated  cartouches  with  decorative  inscriptions  in  Persian  Talik  characters,  which 
alternate  with  eight-lobed  rosaces  showing  floral  decoration.  Both  of  these  are 
connected  by  small  circles  enclosing  an  animal.  All  ornaments  and  the  space  bet- 
ween them  are  decorated  with  scattered  floral  sprays  which  also  adorn  the  small 
border.  The  animals  in  this  rug  are  particularly  realistic  and  well  designed,  and 
the  arrangement  and  drawing  of  plants  are  very  refined.  As  in  most  of  these  rugs, 
the  large  inscriptions  in  the  border  contain  only  quotations  from  Persian  poets. 
A new  feature,  however,  is  a beautiful  leaf  motif,  similiar  in  design  to  an  out- 
curved  halberd  which  is  usually  designated  as  the  “arabesque”  because  of  its  long 
and  frequent  appearance  in  “Arabian”  art.  It  dominates  the  pattern  of  the  central 
medallion  as  well  as  that  of  the  round  medallions  in  the  border  of  the  Lobanow 
rug.  Such  arabesques  sometimes  occur  in  the  hunting  rug,  but  they  are  so  sub- 
ordinated and  small  that  they  are  scarcely  noticed.  The  “cloud  band“  which  winds 
symmetrically  among  the  flower  vines  in  the  center  field  and  the  border  seems  to 
be  a new  motif  but  it  is  only  the  Chinese  Tsdii  in  ribbon-like  development  and 
delicate  Persian  conventionalization.  In  just  this  form  it  became  a particularly  popular 
and  characteristic  element  of  Persian  decoration  at  the  Sefevi  period. 

Several  dozen  silk  rugs  of  this  kind  have  gradually  become  known.  According 
to  the  character  of  Oriental  art,  they  all  show  individual  differences  in  conception 
and  decoration.  The  majority  are  in  the  different  Rothschild  houses  — in  those  of 
Baron  Maurice  and  Baron  Gustave  Rothschild  in  Paris,  in  that  of  Baron  Alfred  in 
Vienna,  etc.  The  museums  of  decorative  art  in  Paris,  London,  Berlin  and  Petro- 
grad  also  own  several  examples.  Others  belonged  to  the  art  dealer  Bardini  in 
Florence,  the  late  Mr.  Morrison,  and  to  the  painter  Goupil,  whose  rugs  were  sold 
at  auction  in  Paris  in  1888  with  his  valuable  collection  of  antique  Oriental  art. 
One  among  them,  now  in  the  Musee  des  Arts  Decoratif  in  Paris  (Fig.  8),  is  similar 
to  the  Lobanow  rug,  except  for  the  more  strongly  conventionalized  design,  especially 
in  the  center  medallion.  Besides  the  dragons  which  are  picturesquely  used  to  form 
the  outline  of  the  corner  motives,  we  find  the  mythical  Chinese  Kylin  in  its  deer- 
like form.  This  Kylin  motif  is  used  alone  as  well  as  in  combat  with  a lion-like 
monster,  which  seems  to  be  the  Kylin  taken  over  from  Korea  to  China.  The  car- 
touches  with  inscriptions  are  also  in  Persian  cursive  characters,  but  they  are  not  of 
the  monumental  type  found  in  the  Petersburg  example.  The  same  pattern,  identical 
in  all  details,  but  knotted  in  wool,  reappears  in  a rug  in  the  former  Yerkes  collection 
and  with  slight  differences  in  another  rug  in  the  Pannwitz  collection.7  A related 
example  in  the  Czartoryski  Museum  in  Cracow  shows  a noticeable  difference  only 
in  the  border  which  is  enlivened  by  animals,  and  the  inscriptions  are  confined 
to  the  smaller,  inner  border.  The  Far  Eastern  influence  appears  plainly  in  a 
rug  of  particulary  beautiful  coloring  and  design  which  has  been  given  to  the 
Berlin  Museum  of  Decorative  Arts  by  the  author.  (Fig.  9.)  The  center  field 
shows  fighting  animals  upon  a flowered  ground  — lions,  tigers  and  panthers  tearing 
ibexes  and  antilopes  to  pieces,  and  also  the  lion  throttling  the  deer  Kylin.  In  the 
central  medallion  the  motif  of  the  dragon  in  battle  with  the  phoenix  is  repeated 
four  times,  elegantly  grouped  around  fully  opened  flowers,  while  in  each  of  the 


The  Persian  animal  rugs. 


19 


corner  pieces  we  find  three  birds  upon  flower  bushes.  In  the  deep  green  border 
each  large  palmetto  flower  is  flanked  by  a pair  of  golden  pheasants  which  pick  the 
berries  from  the  vines  on  which  they  sway.  In  this  movement  they  form  a silhouette 
which  in  other  rugs  is  conventionalized  into  an  interesting  undulated  ribbon  pattern 
(Compare  Fig.  5).  The  inner  small  border  shows  the  cloud  band  alternating  with  an 
open  flower.  This  rug  is  entirely  of  silk.  The  corner  motives,  too,  the  ground  of 
which  in  this  type  of  rug  is  usually  interwoven  with  silver  and  gold  threads,  are 
in  this  case  of  golden  yellow  silk.  In  refined  composition,  in  the  bold  and  vigorous 
design  of  the  animals  and  flowers,  as  well  as  in  the  strength  and  harmony  of  its 
rich  colors,  this  rug  is  one  of  the  most  beautiful  which  has  been  preserved.8 

Another  silk  rug,  (Fig.  10)  in  the  Musee  des  Arts  Decoratifs  in  Paris,  originally 
came  from  the  Goupil  collection.  It  is  closely  related  to  the  Lobanow  rug  except 
for  the  large  oval  central  medaillon  which  is  in  the  shape  of  a cross  with  an  orna- 
mental center  motif  and  a peacock  in  each  of  the  four  arms.  This  central  motif  is 
surrounded  by  a composition  of  single  branches  or  shrubs  laden  with  flowers  or 
fruit.  The  cartouches  of  the  border  are  filled  with  Talik  writing.  An  animal  rug 
belonging  to  Mr.  Baker  in  New  York  is  similarly  arranged,  but  much  more  elaborate9 
We  must  also  mention  woolen  pile  rug  in  the  collection  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce 
of  Lyons  with  some  interwoven  silver  threads  which  has  almost  the  same,  although 
not  quite  so  refined  a border  as  the  Poldi  Pezzoli  rug  in  Milan.  Two  ducks  between 
“Tschi”  motives  form  the  center  of  the  beautifully  designed  central  medallion  around 
which  sitting  figures  and  serving  genii  are  grouped.  Smaller  medallions  of  bat-like 
form  are  attached.  The  same  motif  is  repeated  with  slight  variations  in  two  beau- 
tiful pieces  of  smaller  size  belonging  to  the  Metropolitan  Museum  In  New  York, 
one  of  these  rugs  being  from  the  Yerkes  Collection,  and  a gift  of  Mr.  J.  Fletcher.10 
Both  show  a small  central  medallion  with  ducks,  surrounded  by  a company  ban- 
qetting.  All  kinds  of  animals  — most  of  them  taken  from  Chinese  mythology  — run 
around  in  the  center  field  among  flowers.  An  analogous  example  is  also  in  the 
Textile  Museum  at  Lyons. 

Some  of  the  woolen  rugs  show  silk  rug  patterns  executed  in  a less  costly 
material;  others  have  developed  a style  of  their  own.  Their  design  is  more  vigorous, 
more  angular,  and  sometimes  coarser.  This  is  not  only  due  to  the  coarser  knotting, 
but  also  because  they  often  belong  to  a somewhat  earlier  epoch  of  Sefevi  art,  for 
which  severer  design,  more  vigorous  conventionalization  and  more  energetic  color 
composition  are  characteristic.  If  the  silk  rugs  are  gorgeous  and  alluring,  the  woolen 
ones  are  imposing  and  dignified.  Examples  in  this  material  are  just  as  scarce  as 
the  silk  rugs,  perhaps  because  they  have  been  less  valued  or  less  carefully  preserved. 
The  gift  of  such  a rug  by  Shah  Tahmasp  I.  to  the  funeral  mosque  of  his  dynasty 
at  Ardebil  in  1539  proves  that  they  were  highly  esteemed  in  their  time.  One  of 
these  rugs  with  a border  very  similar  to  that  of  Lobanow  rug,  now  belongs  to  the 
collection  of  the  Manufacture  des  Gobelins  in  Paris.  In  both  of  the  smaller  medallions 
attached  to  the  central  medallion  two  peacocks  stand  in  opposite  representation.  Two 
other  large  rugs  which  are  practically  identical  — one  in  the  possession  of  Count 
Boucquoy  in  Vienna  (Fig.  11),  the  other  in  the  Museums  of  Decorative  Art  in  Berlin, 
are  similar,  but  somewhat,  severer  in  design.  The  Berlin  rug  has  a large  rose- 
colored  central  medallion  with  similar  design  and  the  border  is  divided  almost 
identically  into  rectangular  cartouches  and  four-lobed  quadrangles,  which  are  filled 
solely  with  flower  and  leaf  decoration.  The  white  center  field  shows  isolated,  roughly 
designed  animals,  among  them  the  Kylin.  Although  there  are  no  corner  motives,  the 
center  field  is  considerably  reduced  by  the  two  smaller  medallions  attached  to  both 


20 


Bode-Kuhnel.  Antique  Rugs  from  the  near  east. 


ends  of  the  central  medallion  — the  outer  one  heart-shaped,  the  inner  one  rectangular. 
The  vigorous  pattern  of  this  rug  reveals  a strong  feeling  for  style;  the  coloring  is 
rich  and  harmonious.  The  same  holds  true  for  the  above-mentioned  rug  belonging 
to  Count  Boucquoy  and  for  another  rug  which  appeared  in  the  Paris  art  trade  in  1892. 
We  do  not  know  the  present  location  of  this  rug,  which  was  the  most  beautiful 
of  them  all. 

Another  group,  closely  related  within  itself,  differs  even  more  from  the  silk 
rugs.  Examples  are  found  in  the  Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum  in  Berlin,  in  the  Cathedral 
of  Cracow,  in  the  Collection  of  Prince  Adolf  Schwarzenberg,  in  the  possession  of 
Mr.  Williams  of  Norristown,  Pa.  and  of  Mr.  Bardini  in  Florence.  The  Berlin  rug 
(Fig.  12)  was  formerly  in  an  old  synagogue  in  Genoa.11  The  corner  motives  of 
the  center  field  contained  human  figures.  Such  representations  are  forbidden  by  the 
Jewish  commandment  and  therefore  a strip  of  the  center  field,  some  twenty  inches 
wide,  was  cut  away  on  both  sides  next  to  the  border  which  was  then  sewed  loosely 
to  the  rug.  A mate  to  this  rug  is  said  to  have  been  temporarily  in  Windsor  Castle. 
We  do  not  know  whether  this  is  the  same  rug  wich  Dr.  R.  M.  Riefstahl  has  esta- 
blished as  belonging  to  Clarence  H.  Mackay  in  New  York,  and  which  was  formerly 
in  the  collection  of  Mr.  M.  Perry  in  Providence,  R.  1.  Considering  the  dimensions 
of  the  rug,  the  pattern  is  very  rich  and  of  large  proportions.  The  arrangement 
and  design  have  a consummate  feeling  for  balance  and  fine  convention-alization,  while 
the  rich  coloring  (white,  blade,  yellow,  rose,  cinnabar  red,  salmon  pink,  cerulean 
blue,  deep  blue,  grayish  blue  and  bluish  green)  is  as  vigorous  as  it  is  harmonious. 
The  conception  of  the  center  field  as  a wood  with  trees,  bushes  and  flowers  springing 
from  a white  ground  and  enlivened  with  all  kinds  of  animals,  is  characteristic  of  these 
rugs,  and  differentiates  them  from  those  previously  discussed.  In  the  hunting  rug 
belonging  to  the  Austrian  State,  the  salmon  red  ground  is  similarly  decorated  with 
blooming  plants.  However,  these  merely  produce  an  effect  similar  to  the  flowery 
background  in  the  rugs  mentioned  before,  because  of  their  appearance  between  the 
large  figures  of  the  hunters  and  animals.  But  in  the  rugs  we  are  now  considering, 
the  majestic  trees  and  bushes  with  their  luxuriance  of  flowers,  leaves  and  fruit  are 
the  most  important  feature.  The  arrangement  of  the  central  medallion  with  its  small 
attached  medallions  is  also  characteristic.  These  are  brought  into  strong  relief  both 
by  their  coloring,  and  by  their  ornate  contour  and  rich  decoration  of  animals  and 
flowers.  The  same  holds  true  for  the  corner  motives. 

The  details  of  the  design  are  of  particular  interest.  In  the  white  center  field 
we  find  all  the  mythological  Chinese  animals  which  we  have  seen  here  and  there 
in  the  other  animal  rugs.  Above  hovers  the  phoenix  with  the  lion-kylin  snarling  at 
it;  the  deer-kylin  below  looks  fearfully  at  the  lion.  At  the  side,  at  the  foot  of  two 
high  cypresses,  we  find  the  dragon.  Toward  the  center  of  the  rug  only  Near 
Eastern  animals  appear:  panthers,  bulls,  fallow  deer,  ibex,  jackals,  hares,  and  dogs, 
while  upon  the  trees  are  monkeys  and  song  birds.  The  animals  are  not  fighting, 
but  are  represented  as  grazing  or  looking  at  each  other  and  growling.  Despite  their 
conventionalization,  most  of  the  trees  and  shrubs  upon  or  under  which  the  animals 
move,  may  be  recognized  as  cypresses,  plane,  almond,  medlar  trees,  etc. 

The  design  of  the  central  medallion  and  that  of  the  corner  motives  is  even 
more  original.  The  former  is  entirely  filled  with  walking,  fluttering,  and  flying  cranes 
between  phantastically  knotted  ribbon  motives  in  various  forms.  These  knottings 
are  easily  recognizable  as  the  Chinese  fungus,  theTschi.  Their  ribbon-like,  connected 
design  and  their  twisted  form  prove  that  — - as  in  China  — they  are  very  obviously 
conceived  as  the  symbolical  representation  of  clouds.  They  are  sometimes  massed 


The  Persian  animal  rugs. 


21 


together,  sometimes  drawn  out  very  thin  with  looped,  ribbon-like  attachments  similar 
to  older  Chinese  representations.  A different  motif  repeated  beneath  the  standing 
cranes,  which  consists  of  a smaller,  slightly  twisted  band  with  zigzagged  pro- 
tuberances may  be  considered  as  the  lightning  motif.  The  Far  Eastern  origin 
of  all  these  motives  is  established  beyond  doubt  by  a comparison  with  purely 
Chinese  works  of  art.  Both  the  crane  and  the  Tschi,  are  Chinese  symbols  of 
immortality.  Similarly,  deer  reclining  between  cranes  are  used  as  a symbol  of 
longevity.  The  representation  which  was  repeated  in  the  four  corners  was  also 
purely  Chinese  in  its  inspiration.  This  is  shown  in  the  New  York  specimen  where 
it  is  completely  preserved.  We  can  recognize  a figure  in  a long  Chinese  coat  and 
Chinese  shoes  with  high  soles.  This  figure  stands  before  another  crouching  figure 
who  is  offering  a goblet.  The  space  between  the  figures  is  also  filled  with  peculiar 
ribbon  motives  of  more  intertwined  and  angular  form  than  those  in  the  central 
medallion.  The  knot-like  Tschi  motif,  too,  is  either  unrecognizable  or  else  very 
indistinct.  It  is  possible  that  this  motif  must  also  be  regarded  as  a representation 
of  Chinese  clouds.  The  three  globes  enclosed  by  the  cloud  band  beneath  the 
standing  figure  are  particulary  worthy  of  note.  Their  appearance  as  the  main 
decorative  motif  in  several  rugs  of  widely  differing  types  proves  their  particular 
significance  (Cf.  Fig.  73).  In  these  rugs  the  globes  form  triangles  like  those  in  the 

large  Berlin  animal  rug.  The  use  of  this  symbol  in  connection  with  Chinese  figures 

again  offers  most  trustworthy  proof  that  the  entire  composition  is  of  Chinese  inspi- 
ration. Lastly,  this  theory  is  supported  by  the  parallel,  slightly  twisted  ribbon 

motives,  the  frequent  appearance  of  which  in  rugs  of  widely  divergent  types  may, 
according  to  the  above,  be  explained  as  a Far  Eastern  tradition.  These  motives 
may  be  interpreted  as  clouds,  waves  or  lightning  (fire).  In  such  an  arrangement, 
the  globes  would  represent  the  Tschintamani,  the  holy  symbol  of  the  teachings  of 
Buddha,  repeated  so  frequently  and  so  diversely  in  Far  Eastern  Art. 

Another,  but  obviously  slightly  later  rug,  with  smaller  medallions  and  without  figural 
corner  motives,  is  related  to  the  piece  under  discussion.  This  rug,  as  well  as  the  one 
reproduced  inFig.4,  was  formerly  in  the  Maciet  Collection  before  its  bequest  to  the  Museum 
of  Decorative  Art  in  Paris.  A well  preserved  example  of  the  same  type  (Fig.  13)  which 
belongs  to  Prince  Adolph  Schwarzenberg,  was  brought  before  the  public  in  the  Vienna 
and  Munich  Exhibitions.  As  this  rug  is  of  somewhat  smaller  dimensions,  the  central 
medallion  and  its  attached  medallions  are  considerably  reduced  and  the  corner  motives 
have  disappeared.  Cypresses,  plane,  and  fruit  trees  may  be  identified  in  the  thicket  of 
blooming  trees  and  shrubs. in  the  center  field.  Only  a few  animals  appear  among 
these  trees  — lions,  panthers  and  birds  — whereas  the  phoenix  holding  a little 
bird  in  its  beak  is  used  as  a corner  motif.  The  smaller  inner  field  of  the  central 
medallion  shows  four  pairs  of  ducks  upon  waves  (or  clouds).  Around  it  are  large, 
ribbon-like  arabesques  upon  a ground  of  small  flowers  on  elaborate  vines.  In  the 
small,  rectangular  medallion  attached  to  either  end  of  the  central  medallion,  two 
peacocks  are  represented  in  the  same  way  as  in  several  rugs  previously  discussed. 
The  border  design  is  very  unusual.  An  angular,  undulated  ribbon  motif,  winding 
reciprocally  through  the  entire  width  of  the  border,  divides  it  into  fields  with  alter- 
nating white  and  red  grounds  decorated  with  vines  bearing  blossoms  and  leaves 
with  bird  motives  in  between.  Cloud  bands  of  slender,  exceedingly  pure  Chinese 
form  run  through  the  entire  border.  The  Tschi  motif  is  not  used  elsewhere  in  this 
rug  except  in  the  corners  of  the  center  field  next  to  the  phoenix.  The  full  flowers 
of  the  border  show  in  their  centers  small  masks  of  lions  and  panthers  — the  latter 
in  profile.  In  the  Berlin  rug  such  masks  are  found  much  less  frequently:  — that  is, 


22 


Bode-Kiihnel,  Antique  Rugs  from  the  near  est. 


only  in  the  central  medallion  and  its  smaller  attached  medallions.  The  animal  rug 
belonging  to  Mr.  Williams  has  a border  of  somewhat  the  same  type.  The  deco- 
ration of  its  beautifully  toned  green  ground  is  similar  to  that  in  the  Cracow  rug. 
The  latter,  however,  shows  a yellow  center  field  with  a red  border,  and  its  design 
is  an  intermediate  phase  between  the  two  which  we  have  already  described  in  detail. 

The  Victoria  and  Albert  Museum  in  London  owns  by  far  the  most  magnificent 
and  stylistically  perfect  rug  of  this  type  (Figs.  14 — 17).  This  rug,  strange  to  say, 
has  no  large  central  medallion.  In  its  place  there  is  only  a very  small  round  white 
medallion  with  fish  motives;  both  halves  of  the  rug  show  a beautiful  and  energetic 
pattern.  In  the  middle  of  this  pattern  we  find  a large,  circular  medallion  with 
slightly  curved  outline  bearing  thin  plant  decorations  upon  a black  ground.  Above 
and  below  are  large  Chinese  flower  vases  supported  by  three  lion  pillars  and  held 
by  two  dragons.  The  bodies  of  the  vases  are  decorated  with  a pair  of  geese  in 
opposite  representation.  Four  smaller  oval  medallions,  eadi  with  a pair  of  ducks 
flying  among  flowers  and  cloud  bands  upon  a black  ground,  are  attached  diagonally 
to  the  four  sides  of  the  central  medallion.  The  reddish  brown  ground  of  the  center 
field  is  decorated  with  a few  trees  — blooming  almond  and  fruit  laden  pomegranates. 
Wild  animals  and  mythical  creatures  move  among  them,  while  birds  sway  in  the 
branches.  The  wide  border  (Fig.  17)  also  shows  the  undulated  ribbon  motif.  This 
causes  the  side  with  the  blade  ground  to  be  a kind  of  matrix  for  the  other  side  with 
the  reddish  brown  ground.  Dragons  and  Fohos  on  the  black  ground,  spitting  at 
each  other,  alternate  with  lions  seizing  bullocks  or  antelopes  on  the  red  ground.  All 
these  figures  appear  among  vines.  They  are  markedly  Chinese  in  character.  The 

narrow  outer  border  has  a yellow  ground  with  masks  of  various  animals  among 

vines.  The  rich  and  vigorous  color  harmony  with  its  predominating  note  of  blade 
is  thoroughly  in  keeping  with  the  powerful  and  severe  style  of  the  design  and  the 
interpretation  of  the  plants  and  animals.  This  rug  is  without  doubt  one  of  the 

earliest  works  of  the  Sefevi  period.  The  rugs  of  this  era  are  to  later  silk  rugs, 

what  the  art  of  the  Quattrocento  is  to  that  of  the  Cinquecento  in  Italy. 

Several  other  rare  woolen  rugs  of  large  dimensions  form  an  essentially  different 
group.  The  center  field  of  these  rugs  does  not  show  the  large  compositional  units 
found  in  the  examples  previously  discussed.  Instead,  it  is  entirely  divided  into  small 
recurring  fields  or  cartouches  in  which  ornate  animal  motives  alternate  with  floral 
sprays  and  blossoms.  A particulary  valuable  specimen  of  this  type,  bought  by 
Mr.  Yerkes  of  New  York  from  Adolf  Thiem,  is  now  in  the  collection  of  the  Metro- 
politan Museum12  (Fig.  18).  Dr.  R.  M.  Riefstahl  points  out  a mate  of  this  rug  in 
the  Textile  Museum  in  Lyons.  This  rug  shows  an  all  over  pattern  of  cartouches  on  a 
cream  white  ground.  Large  round  cartouches  with  scalloped  outlines  bear  represen- 
tations of  the  fight  between  the  dragon  and  the  phoenix  upon  a light  blue  field. 
Other  cartouches  with  a black  ground  show  lions  among  vines.  Small,  heart-shaped 
cartouches  show  upward  flying  cranes  among  flower  vines  or  curved  vine  orna- 
mentation with  blossoms,  on  blue  or  rose-colored  grounds.  The  beautiful  main 
border  with  its  rose-colored  ground  has  long  cartouches  in  pale  blue  alternating 
with  small  black  rosaces.  The  latter  again  show  the  symbol  of  the  Ming  dy- 
nasty18 — the  phoenix  fighting  with  the  dragon,  while  the  former  are  charmingly 
decorated  with  arabesques  and  cloud  bands  on  flower  vines.  The  same  type  of 
design  characterizes  a figural  rug  in  the  collection  of  the  Duke  of  Buccleugh  (Fig.  19). 
Although  the  decoration  is  slightly  more  conventionalized,  it  is  incomparably  richer 
and  in  composition  reminds  one  of  the  repeat  designs  of  the  contemporaneous  tex- 
tiles. Falcon  hunters,  musicians  and  revelers  are  represented  in  oval  fields;  in  smaller 


The  Persian  animal  rugs. 


23 


medallions  standing  and  flying  birds  appear.  The  ground  is  filled  with  quadrupeds: 
antilopes,  lions,  panthers  and  foxes,  both  in  trees  and  among  vines.  In  the  border 
the  Chinese  motif  of  the  fight  between  the  dragon  and  the  phoenix  which  predo- 
minates in  the  New  York  piece,  alternates  with  six-lobed  interlacings  of  two  vari- 
colored dragons.  Between  these  are  scattered  all  kinds  of  animals  among  vines. 
The  outer  border  again  shows  the  animal  mask  motif. 

Another  rug  of  very  characteristic  and  beautiful  type  similar  in  composition, 
but  entirely  different  in  details  was  loaned  by  Countess  Clam-Gallas  to  the  Vienna 
and  Munich  Exhibition  (Fig.  20).  The  small  units  or  cartouches  of  the  center  field 
show  varied  decoration.  The  animal  motives  are  limited  to  a pair  of  peacocks  or 
pheasants  in  opposite  representation  which  alternate  with  arabesques,  cloud  bands 
and  palmetto  rosaces.  In  the  other  cartouches  are  branches  and  shrubs  bearing 
blossoms  and  fruit  or  other  motives  in  correspondingly  light  and  delicate  colors.  This 
breaking  up  of  the  center  field  into  rows  of  regulary  formed  cartouches  goes  perhaps 
bade  to  an  earlier  period  of  rug-making.  This  type  of  composition — as  well  as  that 
with  corner  motives,  central  medallion  and  attached  side  medallions— can  be  compared 
with  the  art  of  the  book  decorator.  It  is  particularly  reminiscent  of  the  gold  tooled 
bindings  of  the  16th  century,  with  their  characteristic  frame  of  cartouche  motives. 

There  is  another  group  of  rugs  with  particularly  close  knotting.  In  spite  of 
minor  dissimilarities,  they,  too,  are  clearly  from  the  Sefevi  period.  Their  center 
field,  which  has  no  division  into  medallion  or  cartouches,  is  decorated  with  single 
animals  or  groups  of  animals.  Sometimes  they  move  among  conventionalized  flower 
vines;  in  other  cases  the  center  field  is  conceived  as  a picture  showing  a meadow 
or  wood  with  all  kinds  of  varicolored  animals.  Professor  Sarre  of  Berlin  owns  a 
very  fine,  remarkably  well  preserved  rug  of  the  16th  century  which  belongs  to  the 
first  type  (formerly  in  the  collection  of  A.  Thiem).  A mate  of  this  piece,  formerly 
in  the  Yerkes  collection,  has  been  secured  by  the  Metropolitan  Museum  in  New 
York  (Fig.  21).  The  fragment  of  an  exceedingly  beautiful  rug  of  this  same  type,  whose 
field  and  border  show  analogies  to  many  of  the  specimens  discussed  before,  is  in 
the  Austrian  Museum  (Fig.  22).  Another  is  in  the  North  Bohemian  Museum  of 
Decorative  Art  in  Reichenberg,  while  a third  was  exhibited  in  Munich  by  Mr.  Bohler. 

In  this  chapter  we  have  classified  the  various  types  of  animal  rugs  according 
to  their  typical  variations,  without  discussing  exhaustively  the  examples  preserved. 
In  spite  of  their  manifold  variations,  many  similarities  make  it  probable  that  they 
originated  in  the  same  period  and  in  localities  not  far  from  one  another.  They  all 
belong  to  Eastern  Mohammadan  art.  This  is  shown  by  their  composition  and  by 
the  use  of  motives  which  are  either  familiar  to  the  art  of  Eastern  Islam  or  have 
been  transformed  in  a way  characteristic  of  this  art.  Among  such  motives  the 
arabesque  and  the  fully  opened  flower  motif  are  especially  popular.  This  latter 
motif  is  sometimes  termed  palmetto,  sometimes  pomegranate,  although  it  was  primi- 
tively intended  to  be  a lotus  flower.  The  Persian  origin  of  these  rugs  is  proved 
by  the  use  of  human  figures,  by  their  costumes  and  occupations  and  the  kinds  of 
animals  represented.  But  the  most  conclusive  proof  lies  in  the  artistic  character  of 
the  entire  decoration  which  is  closely  related  to  that  of  Persian  miniature  painting, 
leather  work,  textiles,  decorative  tiling,  and  other  kinds  of  applied  art. 

As  these  works,  and  the  miniature  paintings,  in  particular,  can  be  dated  much 
more  easily  than  the  rugs,  they  are  a valuable  clue  for  dating  the  group  now  under 
discussion.  Rugs  of  this  type  belong  to  the  dynasty  of  the  Sefevi  (1502  — 1736), 
who  established  their  power  after  a number  of  severe  struggles  and  then  brought 
Persian  art  to  a high  state  of  development.  Inscriptions  on  rugs  in  the  Persian 


24 


Bode-Kuhnel,  Antique  Rugs  from  the  near  east. 


characters  of  this  period  confirm  this  date,  while  the  Far  Eastern  motives  in  the  decoration 
are  a final  corroboration.  These  Chinese  influences  are  not  due  to  any  lack  of 
native  creative  power,  nor  is  their  use  entirely  to  be  explained  by  the  practice  of 
borrowing  and  working  over  all  kinds  of  foreign  motives,  which  is  a general 
characteristic  of  Persian,  as  well  as  of  Mohammadan  art.  It  is  better  to  interpret 
them  as  the  result  of  a consciously  planned  artistic  policy  of  the  dynasty,  particularly 
of  Shah  Abbas  the  Great.  This  dynasty  highly  esteemed  the  flourishing  Chinese 
art  of  the  day,  thus  continuing  the  traditions  of  the  previous  Mongolian  period.  For 
this  reason  we  find  the  same  Far  Eastern  motives  in  other  branches  of  Persian  deco- 
rative art  from  the  end  of  the  15  th  until  far  into  the  17  th  century.  But  in  no 
other  form  of  art  do  they  appear  so  numerously,  so  frequently  and  so  purely  as  in 
the  rugs,  not  only  in  those  of  Persia,  but  also  in  those  of  Asia  Minor  and  Armenia. 
This  is  especially  true  of  the  “cloud  band“  which  appears  in  all  Near  Eastern  rugs, 
with  or  without  the  fungus  motif,  the  Tschi.  The  representation  of  various  Mon- 
golian animals,  especially  the  Kylin,  the  phoenix  and  the  dragon  are  also  quite 
widespread  through  Persia.  Furthermore,  one  occasionally  finds  the  Buddhist  globes 
(the  Tschintamani),  the  bat  ornament  and  a motif  representing  either  lightning  or  clouds. 

These  general  points  of  view  may  help  us  to  understand  the  hunting  and  animal 
rugs,  but  as  yet  we  cannot  make  a definite  assignment  of  these  rugs,  to  definite 
provinces  and  manufactories,  or  to  an  earlier  or  later  phase  of  their  evolution.  The 
places  which  were  especially  favored  as  royal  residences  in  this  period,  first  Herat 
Tabriz,  later  Ispahan,  may  well  have  been  of  importance. 


Persian  Rugs  with  floral  Patterns. 


In  the  animal  rugs  of  the  16  th  century  the  center  field  almost  always  shows  the 
same  large  units  of  composition  — a central  star  medallion  with  one  or  two 
smaller  medallions  attached  at  either  end  and  corner  motives  which  often  take  the 
form  of  a quarter  section  of  the  central  star  medallion.  The  entire  rug  is  covered 
with  vines  bearing  blossoms  and  leaves,  among  which  animals  and  figures  move 
as  if  upon  a blooming  meadow.  Leaving  out  the  animals,  a delicately  interlaced 
decoration  of  blossoms,  buds  and  leaves  on  slender  stems  remains.  This  decoration 
is  more  or  less  regularly  set  into  the  main  pattern  which  is  always  of  a broad 
conception,  A considerable  number  of  closely  related  medallion  rugs  which  may 
be  divided  into  two  groups  show  very  similar  decoration.  These  are  without 
representations  of  living  creatures,  or  show  only  very  few  and  small  animals  in 
an  entirely  subordinated  form.  The  older  group,  which  corresponds  with  the  animal 
rugs  in  composition  and  design,  have  vines  with  blossoms,  buds  and  leaves  as 
their  sole  motif  and  shows  them  in  severe  conventionalization.  In  masterly  sense 
of  composition,  in  purity  of  design,  in  tasteful  and  rhythmical  development  of  the 
main  pattern,  in  the  stylistically  perfect  form  of  the  blossoms  and  leaves,  and  in 
richness  and  delicacy  of  coloring,  these  rugs  are  almost  superior  so  those  with  animal 
representations.  Their  material  is  less  costly,  as  they  are  almost  always  knotted  in  wool. 
Their  dimensions  are  usually  rather  large,  to  correspond  with  the  large  proportions 
of  the  elaborate  pattern.  Pieces  characterized  by  inscriptions  donot  seem  to  have  been 
found  among  the  examples  preserved.  Nor  do  old  paintings  give  us  any  evidence  as  to  date. 

Sufficient  information  is  gained,  however,  by  comparing  these  rugs  with  the 
datable  rugs,  both  those  with  animal  representations  and  those  of  related  types. 
Several  characteristics  prove  that  they  were  made  in  a period  previous  to  the  greater 
number  of  the  animal  rugs  — the  beginning  of  the  16th  and  the  latter  part  of  the 
15th  century.  These  characteristics  are  the  vigorous  conventionalization  of  com- 
position and  decoration,  the  regular  appearance  of  numerous  arabesque  motives  and 
the  predilection  for  colors  characteristic  of  the  earlier  rugs  — we  refer  particularly  to 
the  white  and  yellow  backgrounds.  The  striking  similarity  to  the  famous  rugs  of 
the  Sefevi  period,  especially  in  the  border,  offers  still  further  assurance  that  these 
“flower”  rugs  originated  in  Persia.  The  occasional  and  very  inconspicuous  use  of 
isolated  animal  motives  further  supports  this  view. 

A very  beautiful  early  rug  in  the  Berlin  Museum  of  Decorative  Art  is  of  this 
variety.  The  same  collection  also  possesses  another  good  example  with  a more  cur- 
rent pattern.  A smaller,  particularly  well  proportioned  medallion  rug  is  in  the  Cologne 
Museum  of  Decorative  Art.  The  Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum  in  Berlin  exhibits  two 
others.  Several  beautiful  examples  of  very  large  size  which  the  antiquarian  Bardini 
secured  from  Italian  churches  are  now  in  the  collections  of  Baron  von  Tucher  and 
Mr.  Yerkes  of  New  York,  now  in  the  collection  of  I.  Seligmann  (Fig.  23).14  The 
author  knew  of  another  such  rug  in  the  church  of  San  Salvadore  in  Venice,  the  most 
magnificent  of  this  type.  Unfortunately  the  border  has  been  cut  away  at  either  end. 
Another  example,  of  which  only  the  inner  border  has  been  preserved,  is  in  the  col- 
lection of  the  Manufacture  des  Gobelins  in  Paris  (Fig.  24).  Its  most  important  feature 
is  the  very  beautifully  designed  large  central  star  medallion  upon  a red  ground. 
Small  birds  are  scattered  among  the  vines  in  the  corner  motives,  but  these  do  not 
detract  from  the  decorative  unity  of  the  composition.1’’  This  type  is  also  represented 


26 


Bode-Kuhnel,  Antique  Rugs  from  the  near  east. 


in  the  Metropolitan  Museum  (Altman  Collection).  Dr.  R.  M.  Riefstahl  also  calls  our 
attention  to  an  incomplete  piece  in  the  collection  of  Mr.  C.  F.  Williams,  Norristown, 
Pa.,  which  on  a background  of  vines  shows  two  riders  in  sketchy  design,  one  of 
them  seemingly  the  captive  of  the  other.  An  example  owned  by  a dealer  (Fig.  25) 
is  particularly  important  because  of  its  obvious  relation  to  the  Ushak  group,  in  which 
the  designs  of  these  Persian  prototypes  are  interpreted  in  a very  original  way. 
(Compare  page  93)  This  specimen  is  of  conventionalized,  angular  design  and  of 
strong  coloring.  It  has  a large  round  central  medallion  and  a severe  border  of 
broad  arabesques  which  on  both  ends  differs  in  its  solution  of  the  corner  design. 
In  still  another  rug,  sold  in  the  Zander  auction  in  Amsterdam  in  1914,  the  transition 
to  the  Uskak  type  is  still  more  obvious,  especially  in  the  breaking  up  of  the  border 
design;  the  corner  motives  also  are  lacking. 

Another  example  in  the  Victoria  and  Albert  Museum,  the  famous  Ardebil  rug, 
is  slightly  different  from  the  rugs  described  above,  but  has  points  of  similarity  with 
the  “cartouche”  rugs  belonging  to  the  Metropolitan  Museum  and  to  the  Countess  Clam- 
Gallas  (Figs.  18  and  20).  This  is  perhaps  the  largest  rug  which  has  been  preserved 
from  the  earlier  period;  it  measures  38X17  feet  (11,52,  5,34  m;  Figs.  26  and  27). 
The  dark  blue  center  field  is  entirely  covered  with  small  blossoms  and  convention- 
alized peony  like  flowers  of  various  sizes  and  shapes  upon  delicate  vines.  The 
middle  bears  a large  star  medallion  decorated  with  flower  vines,  arabesques  and 
cloud  bands  upon  a yellow  ground.  To  the  pointed  projections  of  its  ornate  edge 
are  attached  sixteen  small  ovals  of  diverse  forms  resembling  Chinese  lanterns.  A 
large  mosque  lamp  is  suspended  from  the  two  ovals  in  the  longitudinal  axis  of  the 
rug.  The  corners  are  decorated  to  correspond  with  the  central  medallion.  The  ex- 
traordinary richness  of  this  design,  which  is  executed  with  remarkable  precision,  does 
not  impress  us  as  confused  and  over  decorated,  because  of  the  large  surface  of 
the  rug  and  the  beauty  and  harmony  of  its  colors.  The  main  border,  framed  by 
small  borders  of  elegant  design,  shows  alternating  round  and  rectangular  medallions 
with  flower  vines  and  clouds  bands  upon  a black  ground.  Up  to  the  present  day 
this  rug  is  unique  among  all  Persian  rugs  on  account  of  the  date  which  is  placed  on 
a small  white  shield  at  the  end  of  the  center  field,  close  to  the  border.  The  rug  was 
woven  in  1539  A.  D.  This  specimen  is  also  of  great  scientific  value  because,  as  an  ex- 
ception to  the  general  rule  we  have  information  regarding  its  origin.  It  was  discovered 
some  twenty  years  ago  in  the  funeral  mosque  of  theSefevi  in  Ardebil  (Western  Persia), 
for  which  it  was  ordered  by  the  Shah  Tahmasp16.  Its  manufacture  in  Kashan  is 
attested  by  the  inscription,  which  at  the  same  time  offers  one  more  proof  that  all 
classes  of  rugs  previously  discussed  originated  in  Persia.  On  the  other  hand,  it 
also  gives  the  most  trustworthy  support  for  dating  all  of  these  rugs  in  the  16th 
century.  According  to  Dr.  R.  M.  Riefstahl,  an  almost  identical  piece,  but  much  cut 
down,  was  bought  by  Duveen  Brothers  in  the  sale  of  the  Yerkes  Collection. 
Another  rug  of  large  dimensions  and  similar  design,  which  lay  for  a long  time  in  a 
mosque  in  Constantinople,  is  reproduced  by  F.  R.  Martin  (Plate  2).  This  rug  forms 
in  some  respects  a transition  from  the  type  just  described  to  the  less  pretentious 
rugs  of  this  group. 

The  omission  of  all  figural  representation  was  a self  understood  requirement  in 
all  rugs  intended  for  a sanctuary.  But  there  are  also  a number  of  palace  rugs  in 
which  the  animal  motif  is  entirely,  or  practically  entirely  suppressed.  However,  in 
their  magnificent  material,  delicacy  of  design  and  excellent  knotting,  these  rugs  are 
in  no  way  inferior  to  the  magnificent  animal  rugs  from  the  Sefevi  period  and  were 
probably  made  in  the  same  manufactories. 


Persian  Rugs  with  floral  Patterns. 


27 


This  is  especially  true  of  a few  silk  rugs,  one  of  which  is  in  the  collection  of 
the  Manufacture  des  Gobelins  in  Paris  (Fig.  28).  A mate  of  this  rug  belongs  to  the 
Altman  collection  in  New  York  (No.  86)  now  at  the  Metropolitan  Museum);  a 
third  is  owned  by  Baron  Albert  Rothschild  in  Vienna  (Fig.  29).  A fourth  of 
equal  beauty,  was  bequeathed  by  George  Salting  to  the  Victoria  and  Albert 
Museum.  The  Paris  specimen  is  very  closely  related  to  the  animal  rug  in  the 
Berlin  Museum  of  Decorative  Art  (Cf.  Fig.  9)  but  in  the  Paris  rug  the  fine  compo- 
sition and  the  exquisite  design  of  the  fully  opened  flowers  in  border  and  center 
field  appear  more  strikingly.  The  beautifully  undulating  arabesques  in  the  central 
medallion  and  the  corner  motives  are  a further  distinction  of  this  rug,  for  in  almost 
all  other  silk  rugs  such  arabesques  are  entirely  subordinated  to  the  animal  forms  or 
completely  lacking.  The  only  Far  Eastern  motif  is  the  Tschi.  It  appears  among  the 
floral  decoration  of  the  center  field  in  purely  Chinese  form  as  snail-like  balls,  either 
with  projections  in  the  shape  of  lightning  or  surrounded  by  the  cloud  band.  The 
Tschi  is  similarly  used  in  a silk  rug  with  a beautiful  deep  red  ground  which  was 
in  the  Bardini  auction  in  London.  The  Rothschild  rug  which  is  especially  distinguished 
by  its  depth  of  color  (cherry  red  predominating)  and  by  the  beautiful  conventionalization 
of  the  flowers,  shows  a large  number  of  inscriptions  which  are  very  skilfully  sub- 
ordinated and  concealed.  In  other  instances,  the  delight  of  the  Orientals  in  convention- 
adzed  inscriptions  occasionally  goes  so  far  that  the  entire  surface  of  the  rug  is 
almost  covered  with  them.  This  is  even  true  of  silk  rugs  from  the  classical  period. 
The  painter  Goupil  in  Paris  owned  a very  characteristic  rug  of  this  type. 

As  in  several  animal  rugs,  the  division  of  the  center  field  into  a central  medallion 
with  smaller  attached  medallions  and  corner  motives  shows  the  first  signs  of  deca- 
dence in  the  group  which  we  have  just  discussed.  The  corner  motives  are  often 
entirely  missing  and  so  are  the  attached  medallions.  The  central  medallion  itself  is 
often  very  small  and  is  not  set  off  by  the  contrast  of  its  color  with  that  of  the 
center  field.  (Compare  two  otherwise  remarkable  specimens,  in  the  Musee  des 
Arts  Decoratifs.)  It  was  now  only  a step  to  the  dissolution  of  the  entire  com- 
position of  the  center  field.  This  was  then  confined  to  vines  with  beautiful  pal- 
metto-like flowers  of  different  shapes  and  sizes  and  to  small  star  flowers  and 
leaves.  Only  the  cloud  band  undulates  symmetrically,  but  inconspicuously  among 
the  flower  vines.  In  several  rugs,  most  of  them  early  examples,  a few  scarcely 
visible  birds  sway  in  the  vines.  The  border,  too,  shows  the  same  type  of  deco- 
ration — large  and  small  peony-like  palmetto  flowers,  usually  attached  in  alternate 
arrangement  to  undulating,  delicate  vines  with  blossoms  and  leaves.  Very  rarely 
these  rugs  show  the  type  of  border  with  alternating  long  cartouches  and  small 
rosaces.  When  these  do  occur  they  have  the  customary  decoration  of  graceful 
flower  vines.  One  early,  particulary  fine  example  was  in  the  Bardini  sale  in  London 
in  1898.  It  was  previously  in  the  collection  of  Allessandro  Castellani  who  secured 
the  rug  in  Nuremberg.  The  colors  in  this  type  of  rug  are  as  arbitrary  as  the  deco- 
ration. The  center  field  usually  has  a deep  red,  the  border  a dark  green  or  a dark 
blue  ground.  Usually  such  rugs  are  of  medium  or  large  size.  They  are  always  of 
wool,  but  knotted  with  great  care  and  very  closely.  Several  smaller  pieces  are  of 
silk  interwoven  with  gold  and  silver.  In  the  numerous  existent  examples  of  this 
type  one  can  clearly  follow  the  development  from  the  severe,  stylistically  perfect 
forms  still  related  to  the  animal  rugs  of  the  Sefevi  with  their  deep,  harmonious 
coloring  and  close,  finished  knotting,  to  those  with  more  careless  design,  brighter 
or  inharmonious  coloring  and  rougher,  looser  knotting.  Because  of  their  relationship 
to  later  examples  dealers  have  adopted  the  designation  “Ispahan  rugs”  for  this  entire 


28 


Bode  Kiihnel,  Antique  Rugs  from  the  near  east. 


class,  although  they  frequently  appear  in  literature  as  “Herat  rugs”,  and  are  then 
classed  among  the  Eastern  Khorassan  rugs. 

Their  date  is  not  alone  to  be  determined  by  their  relation  to  the  animal  rugs, 
which  are  often  more  severe  and  classical,  and  hence  usually  from  an  earlier  period. 
The  numerous  paintings  in  which  such  rugs  appear  establish  their  date  still  more 
reliably.  Although  as  far  as  we  know,  Italian  paintings  show  no  such  rugs,  Rubens 
and  Van  Dyck  owned  various  examples.  In  the  work  of  the  former  we  may  cite 
as  proof  his  series  in  the  Louvre  depicting  the  life  of  Maria  de  Medici,  and  in  that 
of  the  latter  the  portrait  of  the  Children  of  Charles  I in  Windsor  Castle  and  Dresden  as 
well  as  many  other  paintings.  Such  rugs  are  also  found  in  the  works  of  Spanish  artists 
of  the  17  th  century  — for  example,  in  a painting  by  Moya  in  the  Pinakothek  in 
Munich.  In  Dutch  paintings  these  rugs  appear  very  often.  They  are  most  frequent 
in  genre  paintings  — in  works  of  Codde,  Terborch,  Metsu,  Netscher,  Slingelant, 
Vermeer,  P.  de  Hooch,  Eglon  van  der  Neer,  and  Frans  Mieris,  Troost  and  Quink- 
hardt.  From  the  evidence  of  these  paintings  we  may  date  the  manufacture  of  this 
group  of  rugs  from  the  end  of  the  16th  to  the  beginning  of  the  18th  century. 
Besides  their  close  relationship  to  several  animal  rugs  from  the  end  of  the  16th 
century,  the  frequent  appearance  of  such  rugs  in  Portugal  and  Holland  gives  evi- 
dence that  they  originated  in  Persia.  At  this  time  both  Portugal  and  Holland  had 
the  closest  trade  relations  with  Persia.  Holland  gradually  defeated  her  older  rival. 
Both  in  Lisbon  and  Amsterdam  there  were  settlements  of  Persians  — chiefly  Ar- 
menian tradespeople,  among  whose  imported  goods  rugs  are  expressly  mentioned. 
In  Persia,  too,  Herat  rugs  still  appear  in  trade,  particularly  those  of  poorer  quality. 

An  interesting  collection  of  this  type  of  rugs,  almost  entirely  from  Spain  and 
Portugal,  belongs  to  Baron  H.  von  Tucher  in  Vienna  and  Nuremberg  (Fig.  30). 
Another  famous  collection  is  that  of  Senator  Clark  in  New  York  (Fig.  32).  Both 
collections  show  this  group  from  its  origin  up  to  late  times.  Several  valuable 
pieces  are  in  private  collections  in  Austria  (Vienna  Exhibition,  1891).  Others  are  in 
the  possession  of  the  Duke  of  Buccleugh  Mr.  H.  von  Dirksen  in  Berlin  (Fig.  31) 
and  in  the  collections  of  several  Paris  connoisseurs  and  in  the  art  trade  as  well.  In 
the  museums  (Vienna,  Lyons,  Paris,  Berlin,  Leipzig  etc.)  such  rugs  are  also  quite 
common,  but  of  varying  importance.  A very  lovely  example  in  the  Victoria  and  Albert 
Museum  (Fig.  33)  shows  arabesques  in  the  field  and  pheasants  in  the  border. 

The  few  prayer  rugs  preserved  from  the  prime  of  the  Persian  knotting  art  are 
best  classified  with  the  Herat  type17.  Their  design  is  naturally  based  on  a more 
or  less  conventionalized  prayer  niche  which  in  the  mosques  of  the  faithful  points 
the  direction  to  Mecca.  J.  Bohler  exhibited  a rug  of  this  type  in  Munich  in  1910, 
the  coloring  of  which  was  very  similar  to  that  of  the  Herat  group.  This  rug,  which 
bears  many  religious  inscriptions,  is  chiefly  in  tones  of  red  and  green.  A rug  of 
similar  design,  the  epigraphic  parts  of  which  are  confined  in  an  unusual  way  to 
the  upper  part  of  the  rug — the  arch  of  the  niche,  the  border  and  the  edges  — was  in 
the  Yerkes  collection.  Two  good  examples,  one  from  the  Bardini,  the  other  from  the 
Fletcher  Collection,  were  secured  by  the  Metropolitan  Museum17  and  the  most  beautiful 
prayer  rug  known  is  probably  that  in  the  Musee  des  Tissus  in  Lyons.  It  has  silver  threads, 
an  olive  field,  red  corner  motives  and  a bright  border  with  black  inscriptions.  Two  simpler 
rugs  with  bright  coloring  were  lent  to  the  Munich  exhibition  by  L.  Bernheimer18.  One  of 
these  pieces  is  now  in  the  James  F.  Ballard  collection,  St.  Louis.  Of  course,  all  of  these 
rugs  are  decorated  with  floral  forms  without  any  use  of  living  representations. 

The  so-called  “vase  rugs“  obviously  come  from  an  entirely  different  region  of 
Persia,  although  they  also  belong  to  the  Sefevi  period.  In  many  respects  they  form 


Persian  Rugs  with  floral  Patterns. 


29 


the  link  between  the  types  previously  discussed  and  the  so-called  Armenian  group 
which  we  will  study  later.  These  rugs  most  frequently  show  a pattern  dating  from 
about  the  middle  or  the  second  half  of  the  16th  century,  which  is  particularly  effec- 
tive because  of  its  conventionalized  flowers  and  rich  colors.  They  do  not  appear 
in  paintings,  but  a few  years  ago  they  could  still  be  found  in  Italian  churches  and 
in  the  bazaars  of  the  East.  Delicate  vines  bearing  large  fully  opened  flowers  of 
both  star  and  peony-like  form  run  diagonally  through  the  field.  These  vines  either 
enclose  vases  with  a small  boquet  of  flowers  or  large  single  flowers.  Among  the 
latter  there  is  a beautifully  conventionalized  lily  motif,  somewhat  fuller,  but  other- 
wise very  similar  to  that  in  the  well  known  coat  of  arms  of  Florence.  Between 
these  large  flowers  rise  slender  stems  bearing  a luxuriance  of  delicate  small  flowers 
of  more  realistic  formation,  among  which  we  recognize  asters,  blue  bells  and  other 
flowers.  Occasionally  the  entire  plants,  even  with  an  indication  of  the  roots,  are 
used  instead  of  the  flower  brandies.  In  the  earliest  rugs  of  this  type  we  occasionally 
find  the  Chinese  Tschi  motif  in  voluted  snail  form  among  the  flowers.  This  is  the 
case  in  a beautiful  fragment  in  the  Austrian  Museum  (Fig.  34).  As  a rule,  such 
rugs  have  a narrow  border.  Occasionally,  it  is  reduced  to  the  size  of  an  enlarged 
“small"  border.  In  other  cases  it  is  formed  of  large  arabesques,  like  the  borders 
sometimes  found  in  the  medallion  and  animal  rugs.  These  arabesques  frame  pal- 
metto chalices  and  are  filled  in  with  floral  vines  and  small  scattered  motives.  Be- 
sides the  above-mentioned  rug,  there  are  several  beautiful  examples  of  this  type, 
of  different  sizes,  some  of  them  fragmentary,  in  the  museums  in  London  and  Berlin, 
in  the  collections  of  Baron  von  Tucher,  Professor  Sarre,  Mr.  Lamm  in  Naesby 
(Sweden)  and  elsewhere,  especially  in  England.  An  example  in  the  Ottoman  Museum 
in  Constantinople  shows  an  allover  pattern  of  lozenges  framed  by  lanceolated  leaves. 
This  rug  is  probably  the  most  magnificent  specimen  of  this  type  (Fig.  35).  An  inte- 
resting example  in  the  Leipzig  Museum  of  Decorative  Art  has  a few  animal  figures 
and  is  also  remarkable  for  the  powerful  arabesques  in  the  field.  Some  of  the  rarer, 
smaller  examples  particulary  fine  in  design  and  color  were  exhibited  in  the  Vienna 
rug  exhibition  of  1891  and  in  Munich  in  1910  (Fig.  36).  The  diagonal  vines  are 
often  so  slender  and  so  inconspicuous  in  their  color  that  the  divisions  entirely  fade 
away,  and  the  entire  design  has  the  appearance  of  a richly  varied  and  skillfully 
divided  flower  pattern.  As  usual,  the  pattern  is  of  a severely  symmetrical  design, 
but  never  has  a monotomous  effect,  because  the  different  motives  are  generally  so 
skillfully  varied  in  color  that  they  seem  to  take  on  different  contours. 

A pattern  of  great  interest,  and  thus  far  comparatively  rare  is  more  distantly  related  to 
this  group.  Its  decoration  consists  of  large,  loose  floral  sprays  and  small  rectangles 
with  flowers  or  shrubs.  These  have  a unique  frame  of  canals  with  small  ponds  at 
the  points  of  intersection,  enlivened  with  fish  and  ducks.  These  so-called  “garden 
rugs“  are  a textile  interpretation  of  a formal  garden  with  its  flower  beds,  little  fish 
basins  and  streams.  They  are  perhaps  a vague  reminiscence  of  a mythical  rug  of 
colossal  dimensions  — the  so-called  “Spring  of  Khosrau"  which  was  been  described 
by  old  Arabian  writers  and  valued  at  many  hundred  thousands.  It  fell  into  the  hands  of 
the  Arabs  when  in  the  year  637  they  plundered  the  palace  of  the  Sassanids  in 
Ktesiphon.  This  historic  “rug“  of  the  early  middle  ages  must  not  only  have  been 
completely  different  from  the  above-mentioned  class  in  material  and  composition, 
but  was  undoubtedly  of  tapestry  weave  and  not  knotted.  However,  the  recollection 
of  its  beauty  may  have  lead  to  the  repetition  of  many  features  almost  a thousand 
years  later  — a remarkable  evidence  of  the  vitality  of  all  Oriental  tradition. 

Among  existent  examples,  that  of  Dr.  Figdor  in  Vienna  (Fig.  37)  is  executed 


30 


Bode-Kuhnel,  Antique  Rugs  from  the  near  east. 


in  excellent  technique,  an  infrequent  occurrence  in  rugs  composed  in  small  fields 
and  from  such  an  early  period.  This  rug  is  knotted  in  wool,  but  in  such  a way 
that  an  effect  of  silk  is  produced.  Gold  and  silver  threads  are  interwoven  in  nume- 
rous places,  especially  in  the  flowers  and  animals.  These  gold  threads  are  intro- 
duced in  the  same  loose  technique  used  in  the  so-called  “Polish  rugs”  which  we 
will  discuss  later.  Combined  with  the  deep,  gleaming  color  of  the  knotted  ground, 
the  metal  strands  produce  a brilliant  and  picturesque  effect.  All  kinds  of  vari-colored 
birds  sway  in  the  flower  vines,  while  in  two  of  the  fields  an  undefinable  quadruped 
moves  beneath  the  trees.  The  very  narrow  border,  framed  only  by  an  unadorned 
band  on  either  side,  shows  slender  vines  with  alternating  open  and  closed  flowers 
between  lancet  leaves.  A more  elaborate  type  of  this  pattern  appears  in  a garden 
rug  coming  from  Constantinople  and  formerly  in  the  collection  of  the  antiquarian 
Wagner  in  Berlin  (illustrated  in  Martin’s  book).  This  rug  is  now  in  the  United  States 
It  is  divided  in  four  large  canals  which  issue  from  a central  reservoir.  The  remaining 
space  is  filled  by  a large  number  of  animals  between  trees. 

The  same  plan  may  also  be  recognized  in  a later  series  which  shows  details 
of  less  variety  and  a design  already  becoming  stiff.  Two  analogous  examples  of 
this  type,  one  of  bright,  the  other  of  deep  tonality,  are  in  the  Kaiser  Friedrich 
Museum  and  in  the  collection  of  Mr.  Lamm  at  Naesby,  Sweden  (Fig.  59).  Other 
examples  belong  to  Professor  Sarre  in  Berlin,  Mr.  Sidney  Colvin  in  London,  Theodore 
Davis  in  Newport  now  loaned  to  the  Metropolitan  Museum,  to  the  Frankfurt 
Museum  of  Decorative  Art  etc.19.  This  revival  of  the  garden  pattern  probably  ori- 
ginated from  1700  to  1750  in  northwestern  Persia,  where  at  the  date  mentioned 
other  kinds  of  classical  rugs  were  also  copied,  as  we  will  see  in  our  discussion 
of  the  Armenian  rugs.  The  stiff  conventionalization  of  these  copies  gives  the 
appearance  of  a primitive  style,  but  it  is  in  reality  only  a symptom  of  decadence. 
A rug  which  obviously  came  from  a Shiite  sanctuary  in  Persia  and  which  was  ac- 
quired by  the  Mohammadan  department  of  the  Berlin  Museum  in  1920,  may  be  cited 
as  a transitional  specimen  in  the  development  of  the  garden  rugs  from  the  classical 
to  the  decadent  style.  It  was  probably  made  in  Armenia,  as  early  as  the  17th  century. 
Although  of  considerable  size,  this  specimen  is  incomplete;  the  prevailing  colors  are 
red,  blue  and  green  (Fig.  38). 

There  are  a few  woolen  rugs,  probably  from  southern  Persia,  which  show  some 
similarities  to  the  garden  type.  These  have  varied  trees  with  elaborate  blossom  or 
leaf  decoration  in  alternate  arrangement  upon  the  dark  center  field.  The  space  be- 
tween is  filled  with  palmetto  flowers  on  vines,  upon  which  appear  the  contrasting 
figures  of  small  birds.  The  border  is  small  and  shows  a simple,  angular  vine 
pattern  with  an  alternating  open  and  closed  blossom.  Such  a rug  of  lesser  dimen- 
sions and  of  rich  harmonious  coloring,  probably  from  the  end  of  the  16th  century, 
was  secured  by  the  Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum  in  Berlin  (Fig.  39)  from  the  Bardini 
collection.  The  Victoria  and  Albert  Museum  possesses  a rug  which  is  similar  save 
for  a cruder  type  of  design  and  a different  border  pattern.  A more  imposing  type 
of  tree  rug  has  an  undivided  field  filled  with  symmetrically  arranged  large  cypresses, 
fruit  and  flower  trees,  with  palmetto  flowers  filling  in  the  space  between  (Fig.  40). 
The  severe  border  of  wide  arabesques  reveals  that  this  tug. originated  in  the  early 
part  of  the  16th  century,  while  details  of  the  design  show  similaritties  to  a group 
of  the  animal  rugs  as  well  as  to  several  with  vase  patterns. 


Persian,  so-called  Polish  Rugs 


7T  nother  class  of  rugs  is  included  among  the  most  precious  products  of  the 
n manufactories  of  the  Sefevi  Shahs.  These  are  the  so-called  “Polish”  rugs20. 
They  usually  show  ornamental  motives  in  bright  colors,  and  have  a silk  pile  upon  a 
ground  of  silver  or  gold  threads.  Despite  their  costliness,  a considerable  number 
of  them  have  been  preserved.  The  designation  “Polish  rugs”  originated  at  the 
Paris  World’s  Exposition  of  1878  where  varied  examples  of  this  type  were 
exhibited  by  Prince  Czartoryski.  These  are  now  in  the  Museum  in  Cracow. 
Among  them  was  a rug  bearing  the  Czartoryski  coat  of  arms  (Cf.  also  Fig.  41, 
after  a rug  in  the  National  Museum  in  Munich).  Experts  even  thought  that  they 
could  decipher  the  letter  “M”  in  the  border,  which  they  interpreted  as  the  mark  of 
the  Mazarski  manufactory  in  Slucz,  where  the  well  known  Polish  brocade  sashes 
were  woven  in  the  18th  century.  The  manufacture  of  these  sashes  was  started 
with  workmen  imported  from  the  Orient,  while  their  pattern  and  technique  followed 
the  example  of  the  Persian  silk  weaves.  But  we  have  no  proof  that  silk  rugs,  toor 
were  made  in  this  factory.  These  rugs  must  have  been  made  during  the  prime  of 
the  rug  knotting  industry,  as  is  shown  by  the  comparatively  large  number  of  ex- 
istent examples  — numbering  at  least  several  hundred  — , by  their  costly  materia, 
and  their  technical  perfection.  The  conditions  necessary  for  such  a high  develop- 
ment of  the  rug  knotting  industry  did  not  exist  in  Poland  at  this  period.  We  can 
furthermore  prove  that  they  date  from  the  first  half  of  the  17th  century  or  earlier, 
which  is  a hundred  years  before  Mazarski  and  his  enterprise. 

The  Oriental  origin  of  these  rugs  is  fully  assured  by  the  entirely  Persian 
character  of  the  decoration.  The  center  field  often  has  the  well  known  central  star 
medallion  and  occasionally  the  corresponding  corner  motives.  All  the  floral  motives 
in  the  center  field  appear  in  conventionalized  form.  These  include  the  well  known 
arabesque,  similar  to  an  outcurved  halberd,  the  fully  opened  peony  palmetto,  the 
smaller  peach  blossom  and  other  flowers  on  elaborate  vines.  Frequently  the  cloud 
band  in  various  forms  winds  among  the  floral  motives.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
pattern  is  less  sharply  pronounced  than  in  the  animal  rugs,  and  in  the  later  spe- 
cimens it  becomes  somewhat  vague  and  confused.  The  effect  desired  is  merely  that 
of  picturesque  color,  and  if  these  rugs  are  still  in  good  condition,  their  beauty  is 
extraordinary.  The  loose  knotting,  the  high  pile,  the  wide  surfaces  of  tapestry 
woven  silver  or  gold  threads  which  lie  deeper  than  the  pile:  — all  produce  a rich 
girandole  of  flashing  light  combined  with  delicate,  light  hues  of  color.  Compared 
with  other  Persian  silk  rugs  the  workmanship  of  these  rugs  is  superficial  and  careless 
and  hence  shortens  their  life.  Therefore,  among  scores  of  examples,  compara- 
tively few  are  in  a perfect  state  of  preservation.  The  border  either  shows  alter- 
nating flowers,  with  or  without  arabesques,  or  an  angular  ornament  which  we  may 
call  the  “reciprocal  lily”  pattern.  This  pattern,  which  was  found  even  in  mediaeval 


32 


Bode-Kuhnel,  Antique  Rugs  from  the  near  east. 


textiles,  still  appears  in  Oriental  rugs  of  the  15  th  and  16th  centuries.  The  design 
and  conventionalization  of  the  flowers  and  other  ornaments  prove  that  these  rugs 
were  made  in  the  17th  century.  Several  with  borders  of  especially  fine  and  vigorous 
design,  such  as  the  rug  formerly  in  the  possession  of  V.  Robinson  (Fig.  42)  and 
another  in  the  collection  of  Prince  Johann  von  Liechtenstein  (Fig.  44)  were  probably 
made  about  1600.  Others  with  a very  much  more  decadent  form  of  decoration 
may  have  originated  as  late  as  the  beginning-  of  the  18th  century. 

The  similarity  of  this  type  of  rug  to  the  authenticated  examples  of  the  Sefevi 
period,  is  sufficient  proof  for  their  origin  in  one  of  the  Persian  court  manufactories, 
even  though  the  majority  of  examples  preserved  have  been  found  in  Poland,  Austria, 
Hungary,  Russia,  Turkey  and  in  other  countries  adjacent  to  Turkey.  In  these  coun- 
tries they  may  frequently  be  traced  in  the  hands  of  the  same  family  up  to  the 
18  th  and  even  into  the  17  th  century.  In  Persia,  on  the  other  hand,  such  rugs  do 
not  seem  to  appear.  At  all  events,  they  have  not  been  brought  from  Persia  to 
Europe  in  the  channels  of  regular  trade.  At  the  Vienna  Exhibition  dozens  of  “Polish” 
rugs  were  shown,  a number  of  them  of  great  beauty.  Among  these  we  may 
mention  those  belonging  to  the  Emperor  of  Austria,  the  King  of  Saxony,  the  Austrian 
Museum,  Prince  Johann  von  Liechtenstein,  Baron  Nathaniel  and  Baron  Adolphe 
Rothschild,  Prince  Schwarzenberg,  Count  Schonborn  and  others.  At  this  exhibition 
the  above  mentioned  facts  led  to  the  assumption  that  the  manufactory  of  the  ..Polish” 
rugs  must  be  sought  in  Constantinople  or  near  by,  where  a very  well  developed 
silk  and  faience  industry  was  in  its  prime  at  the  same  period.  This  hypothesis  has 
now  been  definitely  given  up,  and  at  the  time  of  the  Munich  Exhibition  in  1910, 
their  Persian  origin  was  no  longer  questioned.  This  exhibition  received  its  first 
impetus  from  the  discovery  of  an  entire  collection  of  Polish  rugs  in  the  Royal  Palace 
in  Munich  by  Prince  Ruprecht.  The  absence  of  these  rugs  in  the  country  of  their 
manufacture  is  explained  by  the  fact  that  they  were  given  as  presents  by  Persian 
rulers  to  European  princes.  For  the  same  reason,  the  appearance  of  coats  of  arms 
and  occasional  concessions  to  European  taste  are  no  longer  surprising. 

In  the  Palazzo  Barberini  there  were  formerly  a number  of  such  rugs  which  had 
been  presented  to  Pope  Urban  VII.  Others,  of  similar  origin,  were  in  the  possession 
of  the  Colonna,  Corsini  and  other  Roman  families.  A particularly  beautiful  example 
of  magnificent  color  harmony  and  very  long  pile  is  owned  by  the  Correr  Museum 
in  Venice.  It  is  probably  the  rug  which  an  ambassador  of  the  Shah  presented  to 
the  Doge  in  1604.  In  1639  a half  dozen  Polish  rugs  were  also  presented  by  a 
Persian  embassy  to  the  Duke  of  Holstein  Gottorp.  These  are  still  in  Rosenborg 
Castle  in  Copenhagen  and  were  reproduced  and  described  by  F.  R.  Martin.  One 
of  them  shows  a central  shield  with  two  beautifully  conventionalized  eagles.  In  the 
Provincial  Museum  in  Hanover  hangs  a particularly  beautiful  example  with  a green 
field  and  salmon  colored  border  (Fig.  45).  This  was  also  quite  obviously  a present 
to  the  court  of  Hanover.  In  addition  to  these  rugs  there  are  several  examples 
which  belong  to  the  Imperial  Armory  in  Moscow,  the  Prussian  and  Austrian  Court 
and  to  several  Swedish  castles.  A rug  in  the  collection  of  the  Duke  of  Buccleugh 
is  analogous  to  the  specimen  reproduced  in  Fig.  43,  save  that  the  design  of  the 
field  is  more  delicate  and  the  border  has  full  arabesques  with  palmettoes.  Several 
dozen  Polish  rugs  may  be  pointed  out  in  private  and  public  collections  in  America, 
partly  from  the  former  Yerkes  collection'21.  (An  important  series  in  the  collection  of 
Senator  Clark  in  New  York,  several  examples  in  the  New  York  and  Boston  museums). 
A few  excellent  specimens,  very  well  preserved,  are  in  the  National  Museum  in 
Munich.  Another,  with  a coat  of  arms  is  in  the  Victoria  and  Albert  Museum'22.  Ac- 


Persian,  so-called  Polish  Rugs. 


33 


cording  to  Dr.  R.  M.  Riefstahl  there  is  a specimen  with  a coath  ot  arms,  which 
cannot  be  identified,  in  the  Mobilier  National  of  the  French  Republic.  Still  another  rug 
from  the  Royal  Palace  in  Munich  (Fig.  46)  has  a center  field  composed  of  two  longitudinal 
strips  with  an  unusual  representation  of  fighting  animals  between  trees.  These  groups 
are  not  in  opposite  symmetrical  representation,  as  would  be  expected  in  a rug,  but 
are  identical,  as  if  they  were  two  juxtaposed  strips  of  a patterned  brocade.  This 
rug  probably  dates  from  the  late  17th  century.  We  cannot  authenticate  the  „Polish” 
rugs  in  paintings,  as  such  articles  of  luxury,  when  they  appeared  at  all  in  trade, 
were  too  exorbitant  for  the  purse  of  an  artist.  In  a portrait  by  G.  Pencz  in  the  Berlin 
Gallery,  a „Polish“  rug  seems  to  be  spread  over  the  table  against  which  the  man 
represented  is  leaning.  Both  the  yellowish  green  coloring  and  the  ornamental  design 
give  clear  evidence  that  this  is  a Polish  rug.  The  date  of  the  portrait  (1534)  gives 
us  a welcome  chronological  hint  for  the  beginning  of  this  class  of  rugs. 

We  wish  to  state,  on  the  other  hand,  that  rugs  were  knotted  in  Poland.  Some 
of  these  may  have  been  made  soon  after  1700.  However,  these  rugs  have  all  the 
characteristics  of  Occidental  peasant  art.  They  are  extremely  crude  in  design  and 
technique;  and  their  color,  especially,  has  no  similarity  to  the  almost  too  refined 
examples  which  we  have  just  discussed.  A very  interesting  rug  which  Dr.  Kuhnel 
saw  in  the  Hospicio  of  Cordova,  may  well  belong  to  this  class.  It  had  a yellow 
ground,  with  a colorful  pattern  resembling  the  “vase*  type.  A coat  of  arms  in  the 
centre  bears  the  insignia  of  the  order  of  Merced,  this  being  the  monastery  from 
which  the  rug  came.  Below  is  the  inscription:  “Se  hyzo  ano  de  1773  siendo  co- 
mendador  el  R.  P.  M.  F.  Antonio  Escribano“. 

The  term  “Polish  rugs”  is  incorrect,  as  we  have  proved  above.  But  if  its  use 
is  to  be  continued  for  the  designation  of  rugs  made  for  Europe  at  the  Sefevi  period, 
it  must  also  be  applied  to  the  tapestry  woven  rugs,  which  were  made  for  the  same 
destination  as  the  pile  rugs,  but  which  were  of  course  intended  as  wall  hangings  -8. 
A certain  number  of  this  type  of  rug  were  shown  for  the  first  time  at  the  Munich 
Exhibition  (1910).  The  Bavarian  Court  contributed  several  of  the  most  interesting 
examples,  among  them  a rug  with  the  Polish  eagle,  that  had  come  by  inheritance 
to  the  house  of  Wittelsbach.  These  “Kilims”,  which  are  of  silk,  frequently  inter- 
woven with  silver  threads,  are  distinguished  by  their  rich  and  vigorous  color  har- 
mony. Their  decoration  often  takes  individual  turns.  Animal  representations  are 
particularly  frequent  and  even  hunting  scenes,  genii  and  other  figural  motives  are 
no  rarity.  (Compare  one  of  the  above  mentioned  rugs  in  the  Royal  Castle  in  Munich 
and  another  rug  in  the  Louvre.)  Another  belonging  to  Dr.  Figdor  in  Vienna  is  one 
of  the  most  beautiful  examples.  It  is  covered  with  lozenge-shaped  cartouches, 
showing  animals  either  fighting  or  standing  alone,  on  a yellow  ground.  The  blue 
border  is  decorated  with  bright  arabesques  surrounding  bird  cartouches.  (Fig.  47). 
Another,  in  an  unusually  good  state  of  preservation,  is  in  the  Mohammadan  Department 
of  the  Berlin  Museum  (Fig.  48).  The  central  medallion  shows  the  dragon  with  the  phoenix; 
the  field,  birds  among  floral  motives;  the  corners  spitting  Kylins,  and  the  exquisite 
border  contains  lions  and  tigers  between  animal  masks  in  four-lobed  rosaces.  All 
this  is  in  a free  naturalistic  style,  reminding  one  of  the  classical  silk  rugs,  while 
the  coloring  is  very  vigorous:  carmine,  salmon  red,  Imperial  yellow,  lemon  yellow, 
green,  light  blue,  slate  blue,  dark  blue,  fawn  color,  purplish  pink,  black  and  white. 
In  four  places  the  word  “Padishah”  can  be  read,  which  proves  that  the  rug  was 
made  in  a court  manufactory.  The  same  pattern  is  repeated  in  a fragment  of  the 
Copenhagen  National  Museum.  We  must  also  mention  a very  well  preserved  specimen 
in  the  Karlsruhe  Museum,  a rug  with  very  similar  pattern  formerly  in  the  possession 
Bodc-K  flhncl.  3 


34 


Bode-Kuhnel,  Antique  Rugs  from  the  near  east. 


of  the  Royal  House  of  Saxony,  and  another  one  belonging  to  the  Countess  of  Bearn. 
The  latter  is  almost  entirely  decorated  with  varying  forms  of  the  Tschi.  (Fragments 
are  in  the  museums  of  Prague,  Dresden  etc.)  The  National  Museum  in  Munich  also 
owns  an  embroidered  rug,  the  coloring  and  design  of  which  place  it  among  the  so- 
called  “Polish"  rugs. 

In  this  connection  we  must  mention  the  unattractive,  socalled  “Portuguese”  rugs. 
These  were  ostensibly  knotted  for  Portugal  or  for  Goa  and  other  European  settle- 
ments in  the  East  Indies.  Their  Persian  origin  is  as  certain  as  their  comparatively 
late  period  of  manufacture.  They  generally  have  a lozenge-shaped  central  medallion 
which  is  always  filled  with  floral  motives.  The  outlines  of  this  lozenge  are  paralleled 
by  numerous  frames  of  zigzag  lines.  In  the  corners  are  small  boats  with  Europeans 
or  stiff  animal  Figures.  The  coarse  border  shows  predominantly  arabesque-like  forms 
and  palmettoes.  Examples  of  this  type  of  rug  are  in  the  Berlin  Museum  of  Deco- 
rative Art,  the  Musee  des  Tissus  in  Lyons24,  the  Lamm  collection  and  elsewhere. 


Indo-Persian  Rugs 


We  cannot  enter  into  a discussion  of  the  Turkoman  rugs.  Although  their  home 
country  is  perhaps  the  cradle  of  the  art  of  rug  knotting  in  general,  the  spe- 
cimens existing  can  scarcely  be  traced  back  as  far  as  the  18  th  century.  This  tech- 
nique was  doubtless  at  its  height  at  the  period  of  Timur  and  his  successors,  in  the 
region  of  Samarcand  and  Bokhara.  Driven  by  the  Sefevi  from  their  seats  in  Western 
Turkestan,  the  Timurids  founded  the  empire  of  the  Great  Moguls  in  India  and 
brought  with  them  the  knotting  technique  as  well  as  the  arts  of  miniature  painting, 
silk  weaving,  etc. 

Until  very  recently,  and  even  in  the  first  edition  of  this  book,  a group  of  rugs 
which  are  obviously  of  the  16th  and  17  th  centuries,  had  been  classified  among  the 
Persian  rugs  of  the  classic  period.  Their  decoration  has  a certain  relation  to  the 
style  of  the  classic  Persian  rugs,  but  some  particularities  of  the  design  and  the  color 
place  them  in  a class  by  themselves.  We  may  now  definitely  state  that  they  ori- 
ginated in  Northern  India.  Indeed,  this  new  group  is  best  termed  “Indo  Persian” 
to  show  that  it  is  a variation  of  Persian  art  on  Indian  soil. 

The  earliest  example  of  this  group  (very  probably  about  1500),  is  a phantastic 
animal  rug.  Two  fragments  of  this  rug,  belonging  to  Dr.  Roden  in  Frankfort  and 
to  the  jeuniette  collection  in  Paris,  (Fig.  49),  were  exhibited  in  Munich25.  Two 
entirely  analogous  fragments,  which  may  not  come  from  the  same  rug  are  in  the 
collection  of  Kouchakji  freres  in  New  York  and  of  Mr.  Henry  Lowenfeld  in  Paris. 
All  these  fragments  show  a peculiar  decoration  of  various  grotesque  animals  which  spring 
from  each  other’s  mouths  in  wild  confusion.  A piece  in  the  Musee  des  Arts  decoratifs,  show- 
ing animal  heads  on  vines,  represents  a later  form  of  this  motif.  The  Mogul  manu- 
factories attain  their  most  complete  development  in  several  rugs  of  very  realistic 
design,  decorated  with  both  plant  and  animal  motives.  The  Austrian  Museum  in 
Vienna  owns  two  by  far  the  most  beautiful  examples  of  this  type.  The  first  (Fig.  50) 
shows  all  kinds  of  birds  which  are  realistically  conceived  and  designed  with  great 
freedom.  These  include  peacocks,  cranes,  hens,  turtle  doves,  hoopoes,  partridges,  etc. 
moving  among  trees  and  bushes  with  luxuriant  foliage.  The  field  has  entirely  lost 
its  textile-like  appearance  and  is  purely  pictorial  without  any  symmetry,  repeated 
motives,  or  restraints  of  architectonic  composition.  The  border  alone  is  reminiscent 
of  the  more  severe  style  of  the  rugs  of  the  Sefevi  period.  It  shows  large  palmetto 
flowers  with  lion  masks  upon  slender  curving  stems.  This  design  is  interrupted  at 
intervals  by  small  panthers  and  bulls  spitting  at  each  other.  The  dashing  and 
picturesque  effect  of  the  design  is  especially  reminiscent  of  certain  Persian  and  In- 
dian lacquer  bindings  of  the  16th — 17th  century  (among  others,  those  in  the  Hamburg 
Museum  for  Art  and  Industry)  which  have  obviously  served  as  models.  The  same 
analogy  suggests  itself  in  a magnificent  piece  in  the  Boston  Museum,  showing  a 
fierce  hunting  scene  with  all  kinds  of  Far  Eastern  and  Indian  animals  (Fig.  51). 


36 


Bode-Kiihnel,  Antique  Rugs  from  the  near  east. 


Besides  the  wild  animals,  this  rug  has  a representation  of  a hunting  car  drawn 
by  an  ox  and  a glimpse  of  the  diversions  in  a garden  pavilion.  The  border  shows 
palmetto  masks  of  grotesque  design.  There  are  several  animal  rugs  similar  to  the 
two  examples  mentioned  above,  except  that  the  decoration  is  coarser  and  less  ela- 
borate. These  are  in  the  Widener,  closely  related  to  the  Boston  specimen,  Goupil, 
Yerkes,  Karthaus  (Potsdam)  collections,  two  in  the  Metropolitan  Museum,  gift  of 
J.  P.  Morgan  etc.  Others  are  in  the  London  and  Paris  museums  of  decorative 
art.  A fragment  from  the  Sarre  collection  also  deserves  mention.  It  shows  two 
elephants  of  fine  color  and  design  in  opposite  representation. 

The  second  of  the  magnificent  rugs  of  the  Austrian  Museum  (Fig.  52)  has  the 
characteristic  niche  of  the  prayer  rug  type.  Naturally  its  religious  purpose  prohibited 
this  use  of  figural  motives.  Hence  the  field  is  entirely  covered  with  closely  growing 
flowers  of  delicate  hues  which  all  spring  luxuriantly  from  a single  shrub.  Another 
Mihrab  pattern  with  a simple,  loosely  designed  thistle  plant,  is  represented  by  rugs 
in  he  collections  of  Mr.  Yerkes'26,  Mr.  Engel-Gros  and  Mr.  Sassoon  London.  Almost 
the  identical  pattern  is  found  in  Persian  brocades  from  the  Beghian  and  Kelekian 
collections. 

As  a rule,  the  most  reliable  identification  for  the  Indian  rugs  is  their  wine  red 
ground,  the  tonality  of  which  is  essentially  different  from  the  typically  Persian  shades. 
The  complete  disregard  of  symmetry  is,  also,  as  we  have  seen,  a typical  characte- 
ristic of  Mogul  rugs.  On  the  other  hand,  if  one  finds  examples  with  a repeat,  as 
in  textile  patterns,  it  is  quite  safe  to  conclude  that  they  are  of  later  date  and  that 
they  were  influenced  by  the  velvet  industry  of  southern  Persia  and  northern  India, 
which  was  highly  developed  in  the  17th  century.  For  example,  this  influence  is 
unmistakable  in  a silk  rug  with  flower  bushes  and  birds  in  the  M usee  des  Arts 
decoratifs  (Fig.  53)  and  still  more  plainly  in  a third  specimen  in  the  Austrian  Museum 
(Fig.  54).  The  latter  has  a monotonous  field  the  entire  decoration  of  which  consists 
of  two  inconspicuous  floral  motives  set  in  unending  rows.  Even  the  somewhat 
severer  border  cannot  give  to  this  decoration  the  character  of  a rug. 


So-called  Armenian  Rugs 


The  rugs  of  the  Sefevi  period  show  the  knotting  art  in  its  highest  develop- 
ment. When  studying  them  one  always  feels  that  both  technique  and  design 
must  have  gone  through  a number  of  preliminary  stages  before  reaching  such  per- 
fection. Therefore  it  would  be  of  the  greatest  importance  to  find  earlier  examples 
showing  these  previous  stages  of  development.  But  difficulties  arise  when  we  take 
stock  of  the  existent  examples  of  the  early  knotted  rugs.  To  be  sure,  there  are  a 
number  of  specimens  from  Asia  Minor  and  Spain  which  are  unmistakably  to  be 
attributed  to  the  15  th  century  and  a few  less  numerous  examples  from  an  earlier 
epoch.  But  only  one  group  is  related  to  the  Persian  rugs  and  can  be  defined  with 
some  exactitude.  These  are  the  so-called  Armenian  animal  rugs. 

Examples  of  this  type  are  for  from  numerous  and  it  is  also  difficult  to  identify 
them  in  paintings.  Indeed,  little  was  known  about  Armenian  rugs  before  the  first 
edition  of  this  book.  In  the  Munich  Exhibition  they  were  represented  by  half  a 
dozen  examples. 

Instead  of  the  large  homogenous  patterns  of  the  Sefevi  period,  these  rugs  show 
a combination  of  a number  of  dissimilar  compartments. 

The  elaborate  flowered  ground  which  in  other  types  of  rugs  serves  as  a back- 
ground for  the  animal  representations,  is  either  entirely  lacking  or  very  much  reduced. 
The  animals  appear  most  frequently  upon  a plain  colored,  unpatterned  ground, 
showing,  at  the  most,  single  angular  flowers  or  other  small  ornaments  used  to  fill 
in  the  space.  Instead  of  the  usual  wide  and  elaborate  borders,  they  have  only  a 
narrow  border  with  slender,  severely  conventionalized  vines,  leaf  ornamentation  and 
similar  decoration.  As  a rule,  the  usual  small  borders  on  the  outside  and  inside 
of  the  main  border  are  missing.  The  different  compartments  are  separated  by  strips 
of  poorly  designed  geometrical  figures  or  else  by  thin  and  severely  conventionalized 
floral  scrolls.  The  colors  are  vigorous  and  primary.  The  ground  is  usually  yellow, 
rarely  white,  red,  purple  or  black.  The  wool  is  rough,  with  a high  pile  and  good 
knotting. 

All  these  elements  make  these  rugs  austere  and  primitive,  sometimes  even  bar- 
baric, yet  at  the  same  time,  they  are  of  an  extremely  logical  and  rhythmical  con- 
ception. Therefore,  we  may  at  once  exclude  the  assumption  that  the  Armenian  rugs 
are  a decadent  form  of  the  16th  century  animal  rugs.  On  the  other  hand,  one 
could  overestimate  the  chronological  distance  between  these  rugs  and  those  of  the 
classical  Sefevi  period  and  place  a yawning  gap  between  both.  F.  R.  Martin  in  his 
“Oriental  Carpets”  seems  to  take  this  view  by  placing  these  rugs  as  early  as  the 
middle  of  the  thirteenth  century.  However,  they  are  certainly  not  that  old,  for 
despite  dissimilarities  in  style,  several  decorative  motives  show  a very  close  relation- 
ship to  certain  Sefevi  patterns,  especially  those  in  the  vase  rugs.  In  the  latter  a narrow 
border  and  rather  severely  conventionalized  decoration  are  equally  frequent.  A well- 


38 


Bode-Kuhnel,  Antique  Rugs  from  near  east. 


known  example  — the  large  vase  rug  in  the  Ottoman  Museum  (Fig.  35)  — shows  an 
entirely  analogous  division  of  the  field.  So  even  if  we  regard  this  group  as  direct 
predecessors  to  the  magnificent  Persian  rugs,  they  must  have  originated  in  a part 
of  Persian  where  the  conditions  for  this  craft  were  essentially  different.  Furthermore, 
we  may  ask:  Are  these  rugs  an  article  of  luxury  which  were  made  in  some  cul- 
tural center  in  a manufactory  conducted  by  artists,  as  was  doubtless  true  of  the 
majority  of  the  rugs  previously  discussed,  or  do  they  represent  examples  of  a highly 
developed  folk  art,  intended  for  the  palaces  of  the  rich  but  made  by  peasants  or  nomads 
in  whose  tribes  rug  knotting  was  an  ancient  tradition?  Without  definitely  answering 
these  questions,  we  can  establish  this  much:  the  primitive  character  of  the  early  types 
may  be  readily  explained  as  a particular  style  created  by  the  requirements  of  a 
particular  technique.  In  this  style  all  decorative  motives  are  deprived  of  their  real- 
ism and  are  expressed  according  to  the  technique  of  knotting.  The  other  rugs  of 
the  16th  and  17  th  centuries,  are  an  outgrowth  of  the  general  refinement  of 
artistic  taste,  and  attain  such  technical  perfection,  that  their  spirited  design  almost 
equals  the  art  of  painting.  But  the  Armenian  group  had  already  been  influenced 
by  foreign  civilization,  as  several  decorative  motives  prove,  particularly  the  Far  Eastern 
fabulous  animals,  which  are  found  on  practically  all  the  examples  preserved.  The 
use  of  these  animals  may  be  readily  explained  by  the  admiration  of  the  Persians 
for  Chinese  art.  In  this  instance,  these  animals  are  obviously  characterized  as  Mon- 
golian heraldic  animals,  despite  their  barbaric  design.  The  dragon  standing  upright, 
and  the  dragon  fighting  with  the  phoenix  are  rough  reproductions  of  the  Ming 
symbols27.  Besides  these  motives  the  Foho  with  the  Kylin  also  appear.  It  might 
be  claimed  that  these  rugs  are  of  Mongolian  or  Chinese  origin.  But  this  is  im- 
possible, for  different  reasons:  the  sacred  animals  of  Chinese  mythology  are  repro- 
duced without  intelligence,  and,  in  some  cases  they  are  intermingled  with  animals 
of  diverse  types;  some  of  which  have  no  relation  to  China  whatever  and  are  of 
purely  Near  Eastern  type. 

We  must  therefore  seek  elsewhere  for  the  origin  of  these  rugs.  Perhaps  the 
hypothesis  of  their  Armenian  origin  which  has  been  gradually  adopted  is  right.  One 
must  remember  that  Armenia  was  repeatedly  in  close  connection  with  Persia,  not 
only  culturally,  but  politically,  and  that  knotting  is  still  practised  there  in  many 
places.  Indeed,  we  may  perhaps  discover  the  last  influences  of  the  old  patterns  in 
the  technique,  color  and  design  of  many  17th  and  18th  century  rugs  which 
doubtless  originated  in  Armenia.  In  rugs  of  this  type  the  animal  representations 
have  become  transformed  into  ornamental  motives.  Several  examples  of  this  type 
are  in  the  Austrian  Museum.  A piece  mentioned  by  F.  R.  Martin  shows  an  Ar- 
menian inscription  and  the  date  1684.  The  use  of  Far  Eastern  motives  in  a rug 
made  in  the  northwestern  border  territory  of  Persia  is  not  at  all  astonishing.  On 
the  one  hand,  the  first  Seljuks  brought  all  kinds  of  inspiration  from  the  East.  On 
he  other  hand,  after  the  invasion  of  Hulagu  — i.  e.  from  the  second  half  of  the  13th 
century  — an  entire  flood  of  Far  Eastern  motives  poured  in  upon  all  the  decorative 
arts  of  the  Near  East. 

As  we  have  said,  there  are  only  a few  existent  examples  of  these  rugs.  Several 
very  large  pieces  show  dragons  standing  upright  alternating  with  other  animals. 
One,  found  in  the  Orient,  and  formerly  in  the  collection  of  Theodore  Graf  in 
Vienna,  has  been  secured  by  the  Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum  in  Berlin  (Fig.  55).  Two 
other  examples,  once  in  an  Italian  church,  are  now  in  the  Bardini  collection28. 
Others  are  in  the  collections  of  Mr.  Williams,  Norristown,  Pa.,  Mr.  Sharpies,  West- 
chester, Pa.,  Mr.  ).  Mcllhenny,  Philadelphia;  D.  C.  Jackling,  San  Francisco,  Professor 


So-called  Armenian  Rugs. 


39 


Sim  Khovitch,  New  York,  James  F.  Ballard,  St.  Louis,  George  Hewitt  Myers,  Washington 
and  the  Boston  Museum.  Another  formerly  in  the  collection  of  the  author,  is  now 
in  the  Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum.  Others  are  in  the  collections  of  Mr.  Lamm  in  Nasby, 
Sweden,  and  Mr.  van  Stolk  in  the  Hague  and  in  the  Victoria  and  Albert  Museum. 
All  these  rugs  are  very  similar.  One  specimen,  found  in  a church  near  Venice,  has 
rows  of  lozenges  with  a dragon  motif  alternating  with  others  whose  design  seems 
to  represent  a pair  of  running  stags  near  a tree.  In  the  first  of  the  above-mentioned 
rugs,  running  bulls,  panthers,  hares  and  other  animals  which  always  appear  in  pairs, 
are  used  with  the  dragon  motif.  In  others,  the  dragon  and  Kylin  are  represented 
fighting  with  the  Foho.  They  are  doubtless  of  different  periods,  the  later  ones  with  an 
obvious  tendency  towards  simplification  and  distortion  of  the  pattern;  the  one  repro- 
duced in  Fig.  56  may  be  regarded  as  a transitional  specimen.  The  color  scale  is 
usually  very  rich.  In  the  Berlin  rug,  for  instance,  we  find  the  following  tones:  — 
white,  yellow,  red,  salmon  red,  blue,  sky  blue,  bluish  green,  vernal  green,,  light  gray,  light 
brown,  dark  brown,  black.  In  the  Arabian  Museum  in  Cairo  there  is  a later  example 
with  stiffly  designed  human  figures.  In  this  rug,  the  alternating  of  the  animal  fields 
with  those  bearing  flowers  or  trees,  and  the  peculiar  borders  of  the  lozenges,  are 
noteworthy.  Formerly  there  have  been  attempts  to  find  traces  of  Arabian  writing 
and  all  kinds  of  cryptogrammatic  enigmas  in  the  conventionalized  vines  of  the 
border.  The  Viennese  Orientalist  Karabacek  even  thougth  that  he  could  recognize 
an  inscription  in  the  rug  belonging  to  Mr.  Graf.  According  to  his  reading  this 
inscription  proved  that  the  rug  originated  in  the  13th  century  in  northern  Syria. 
This  is  all  pure  imagination;  the  rugs  have  no  inscriptions  whatever. 

Several  other  rugs  belonging  to  the  same  class  have  no  representations  of 
mythological  or  real  animals.  However,  they  show  many  analogies  in  technique.  In  fact, 
the  mark  of  a comparatively  early  date  actually  appears  in  only  one  other  group, 
in  which  large  floral  sprays  are  the  characteristic  form  of  decoration.  Although  this 
group  has  many  motives  peculiar  to  itself,  the  general  conception  seems  to  be  the 
same.  An  example  of  this  type  is  partly  in  the  Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum  partly  in 
the  collection  of  Mr.  C.  F.  Williams,  Norristown.  (Fig.  57). 29  A second  is  in  the 
collection  of  Mr.  Lamm  in  Nasby.  A third  belongs  to  Mr.  M.  K.  W.  Vanderbilt 
in  New  York.  These  rugs  have  comparatively  large  longitudinal  cartoudies  divi- 
ded into  larger  and  smaller  halves  of  a peculiar  polygonal  form.  They  appear  in 
rows  of  four,  alternately  pointing  upward  and  downward.  The  two  outer  ones 
are  cut  by  the  border  and  hence  only  partially  visible.  The  larger  half  of 
these  units  shows  a central  decoration  of  one  large,  beautifully  conventionalized 
flower,  the  smaller  one  a more  inconspicuous  palmetto  of  similar  design.  Both  are 
enclosed  by  a vine  with  small  flowers.  The  sections  between  these  fields  are  always 
filled  with  a compact  floral  branch  which  has  a heavy  stem.  In  the  one  row  these 
sprays  bear  small  blossoms  like  the  almond;  in  the  other  they  have  fruit  motives, 
similar  to  the  pomegranate.  The  more  naturalistic  form  of  these  motives  affords  a 
fine  contrast  to  the  conventionalized  flowers  in  the  cartouches.  The  border  design 
of  the  Berlin  rug  establishes  the  relationship  between  this  type  and  the  Armenian 
animal  rugs.  The  original  and  powerful  style  of  its  decoration  manifests  itself  in 
the  characteristic  division  of  the  field  into  cartouches,  but  in  the  present  group  the 
small  flowers  are  in  complete  geometrical  conventionalization, 

The  color  composition  of  this  rug  is  as  original  and  powerful  as  the  design. 
The  colors  are  gorgeous,  pure  and  vivid  and  are  blended  in  a very  piquant  manner. 
This  group  of  rugs,  too,  is  fundamentally  different  from  those  of  the  Sefevi  period, 
although  they  have  been  influenced  by  the  latter  in  the  design  of  the  fruit  and 


40 


Bode-Kuhnel,  Antique  Rugs  from  the  near  east 


flower  bushes  and  by  the  occasional  breaking  up  of  the  Medallion  composition 
(Cf.  Fig.  20). 

Armenia,  conceived  as  the  northwestern  border  territory  of  Persia,  must  be 
considered  as  the  home  of  an  entire  group  of  knotted  rugs,  which  are  best  defined 
as  the  successors  of  the  Sefevi  pattern.  They  seem  to  have  come  into  favor  at  the 
end  of  the  17  th  century  after  the  classical  period  of  the  Persian  manufactories  had 
passed,  and  were  then  adopted  in  that  region.  Most  frequently  they  show  a field 
with  animal  combat  scenes  loosely  distributed  between  cypress  trees  and  other  plant 
motives  and  framed  by  a simple  border.  All  these  elements  of  decoration  are 
borrowed  from  the  magnificent  rugs  of  the  classic  period,  but  everything  is  reduced 
to  a very  modest  scale  and  is  rendered  in  an  awkward  and  stiff  style  of  design, 
often  without  an  understanding  of  the  motif.  A close  comparison  with  the  classical 
patterns  of  the  Sefevi  period  and  with  those  of  their  above-mentioned  predecessors, 
makes  it  obvious  that  these  rugs  are  not  primitive,  but  decadent  specimens.  The 
simplification  of  the  decorative  problems  is  evident  in  the  confusion  of  the  design, 
the  lack  of  color  harmonization,  the  use  of  arbitrary  border  motives  and  in  other 
signs  of  decadence.  In  spite  of  their  later  origin,  such  animal  rugs  are  rather  rare. 
We  may  mention  specimens  in  the  possession  of  Count  von  Leuchtenberg  in  Petro- 
grad,  Kouchakji  Freres  in  Paris,  the  Cologne  Museum  of  Decorative  Art  and  the 
Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum  in  Berlin  (Fig.  58).  Dr.  Martin  (P.  12  of  the  text  volume), 
reproduces  a rug  of  this  class,  but  he  ascribes  it  to  the  13th  century.  On  the 
other  hand,  he  is  probably  correct  in  attributing  a very  conventionalized  hunting 
rug  of  the  same  class  (P.  55  of  the  same  book)  to  the  “Southern  Caucasus,  about 
1680”.  The  later  garden  rugs,  which  we  discussed  before  in  detail,  also  belong  to 
this  category  (Fig.  59). 


Early  Anatolian  Rugs 


The  Nomad  tribes  of  Turkestan  who  still  use  the  oldest  type  of  purely  mathe- 
matical linear  design,  have  always  practised  rug  knotting. 

It  is  therefore  not  remarkable  that  the  earliest  evidences  of  the  knotting  technique 
have  been  found  in  this  territory  and  in  Chinese  Turkestan,  especially.  They  belong 
to  the  finds  of  the  Turfan  Expeditions  of  the  Berlin  Museum  and  to  the  discoveries 
of  Mr.  Aurel  Stein.  These  specimens  may  perhaps  be  from  the  5th-6th  century 
A.  D.  R.  Berliner  and  F.  Sarre  have  very  recently  called  our  attention  to  these  first 
feeble  attempts  at  a type  of  art  which  was  destined  to  such  an  important  development. 
In  the  Middle  Ages,  therefore,  the  Turkish  population  which  settled  in  Asia  Minor 
have  contributed  most  to  the  art  of  rug  knotting.  This  art  seems  to  have  flourished 
even  at  the  time  of  the  Sultanat  of  Konia,  for  Marco  Polo,  who  travelled  in  the 
Seljuk  empire  at  the  end  of  the  13th  century,  mentions  that  the  best  and  most 
beautiful  rugs  in  the  world  were  made  there.  Several  existent  examples  may  be  cited 
as  proof  of  this  statement.  Three  of  these  rugs,  which  must  have  been  made  about 
the  13th  century,  laid  in  the  columned  hall  of  the  mosque  Ala-ed-din  in  Konia  until 
their  transfer  to  the  Ewkaf  Museum  in  Constantinople.  A fourth  specimen  appears 
to  have  served  young  Giotto  as  a model  for  a curtain  in  one  of  the  frescoes  of  the 
upper  Church  of  Assisi.  The  decoration  (Figs.  60—62),  consists  of  simple  geome- 
trical motives  which  in  three  of  the  rugs  extend  symmetrically  over  the  entire  field. 
But  in  the  fourth  rug,  the  field  is  composed  of  completely  irregular  octagons.  In 
three  examples  the  border  still  shows  vigorous  conventionalized  Cufic  writing,  while 
in  the  fourth  (Fig.  62)  this  writing  has  become  a mere  ornament.  The  primitive 
character  of  these  rugs  is  beyond  question.  They  are  without  the  slightest  trace  o 
floral  or  figural  motives,  and  even  the  ornamentation  is  extremely  simple  and  primitive. 
The  coloring,  predominantly  red,  yellow  and  blue,  also  lacks  all  subtlety  of  shading. 
Several  Spanish  Moorish  rugs  of  the  14th — 15th  centuries,  discovered  some  time 
ago,  are  probably  most  closely  related  to  this  group,  and  in  some  respects  seem 
to  be  their  successors.  However,  we  are  not  concerned  with  these  rugs. 

In  the  13th  or  14th  centuries  animal  forms  may  also  have  entered  the  con- 
ceptions of  the  rug  knotters  of  Asia  Minor,  but  naturally,  such  motives  were  first 
expressed  in  very  severe  linear  style.  We  have  positive  proof  for  this  in  an  in- 
complete rug  which  was  found  in  a church  in  central  Italy.  This  rug  was  later 
brought  to  Rome,  and  is  now  in  the  Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum  (Fig.  63).  The  two 
fields  still  preserved  show  the  same  pattern  — the  dragon  in  combat  with  the 
phoenix.  The  design  is  very  barbaric ; in  fact,  it  is  almost  a caricature.  It  is  probable 
that  this  rug  originally  had  three,  and  perhaps  even  six  fields,  since  there  is  only 
a border  on  one  of  the  smaller  sides.  The  framings  of  the  octagonal  fields  and 
the  narrow  border  show  simple  patterns  of  rigid  geometrical  conventionalization. 
The  colors  are  as  simple  and  crude  as  the  pattern.  The  ground  is  a vigorous  yellow. 


42 


Bode-Kiihnel,  Antique  Rugs  from  near  east. 


the  animals  are  blue  and  red,  while  the  border  shows  red  ornamentation  upon  a 
black  ground.  A publication  on  antique  Norwegian  rug  designs  shows  a similar 
piece.  Certain  details  reveal  that  this  Norwegian  rug  is  not  of  Oriental  origin. 
Yet  it  is  so  similar  to  the  Near  Eastern  group  just  described  and  so  strikingly  Oriental 
even  in  the  smallest  details  of  composition  and  decoration,  that  it  must  be  an  imi- 
tation of  this  Oriental  type.  The  plundering  expeditions  of  Norwegian  sea  robbers 
as  far  as  the  East  coast  of  the  Mediterranean  might  very  well  have  brought  Sara- 
cenic wares  to  Scandinavia.  Besides,  we  are  well  aware  of  the  lively  trade  relations 
between  the  North  and  the  Orient.  The  Berlin  rug  is  the  only  original  still  existing, 
but  a fortunate  circumstance  has  preserved  the  reproduction  of  an  identical  rug  on 
an  old  painting.  This  will  allow  us  to  determine  its  exact  date.  This  painting  is 
a fresco  in  the  Spedale  (Hospital)  della  Scala  in  Siena  by  Domenico  di  Bartolo. 
It  represents  the  “Marriage  of  the  Foundlings”  and  was  painted  between  1440  and 
1444  (Fig.  64).  The  pattern  is  almost  identical  to  that  of  the  Berlin  rug  and  is 
conventionalized  in  the  same  rough  way,  while  the  corners  of  the  octagons  show 
very  similar  degenerated  ornaments.  However,  the  borders  of  the  individual  com- 
partments are  wider.  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  border  of  this  rug  shows  a 
motif  which  resembles  a battlement  and  which  in  our  discussion  of  the  so-called 
“Polish”  rugs  was  designated  the  “reciprocal  lily”  pattern.  The  same  rug  is  also 
represented  in  a tournament  scene  upon  a practically  contemporaneous  cassone 
picture. 

Fortunately  our  judgment  of  mediaeval  knotting  in  Asia  Minor  is  not  dependent 
upon  this  one  existent  example.  Similar  rugs  are  also  found  in  a number  of  pic- 
tures from  the  beginning  of  the  15th  and  from  the  14th  centuries,  besides  a few 
isolated  examples  from  the  end  of  the  13th  century.  All  these  confirm  our  early 
dating  of  the  rugs  themselves. 

A rug  with  a very  primitive  pattern  appears  in  a large  Madonna  painting  by 
Fra  Angelico  with  the  figures  of  Saint  Cosmas  and  Saint  Damianus.  This  picture 
was  painted  in  1438,  and  is  in  the  Academy  of  Florence.  In  each  of  the  fields 
animals  are  grouped  in  twos,  one  above  the  other;  none  of  them  can  be  definitely 
identified.  Small  stars,  zigzag  lines  and  similar  simple  ornaments  enclose  the  com- 
partments while  the  narrow  border  is  decorated  with  rosaces.  A rug  in  the  “Betro- 
thal of  Mary”  by  an  unknown  Sienese,  shows  similar  primitive  representations 
with  an  animal  in  each  field  and  ornamental  Cufic  writing  in  the  border.  This 
picture,  which  dates  from  the  15th  century,  is  in  the  National  Gallery  in  London 
(Nr.  1317).  Another  similar  rug  is  found  upon  an  almost  contemporaneous  portrait 
by  Giovanni  di  Paolo  wrongly  ascribed  to  Pisanello,  which  is  in  the  Galerie  Doria 
in  Rome. 

The  pictures  of  the  Trecento  also  show  very  simple  rugs  with  severely  con- 
ventionalized animal  motives.  However,  their  designs  are  not  as  crude  as  those 
from  the  first  half  of  the  Quattrocento.  Birds  are  the  main  motives  in  the  fabrics 
of  this  period,  and  in  the  rugs  they  seem  to  be  the  only  existing  patterns,  as  far 
as  we  can  recognize  them  with  certitude.  They  seem  to  occur  in  the  frescoes, 
particularly  in  those  by  Giotto  in  Assisi,  but  unfortunately  they  are  restored  beyond 
recognition.  The  different  bird  patterns  are  closely  related.  A single  bird,  or  two 
birds  in  opposite  representation  are  shown  in  octagonal  or  quadrangular  compart- 
ments of  vigorous  coloring.  In  the  corresponding  compartments  the  animals  are 
usually  in  opposite  representation  according  to  the  character  of  the  rug,  and  the 
colors  are  also  reversed.  The  small  framings  and  even  the  main  borders  are  as  a 
rule  without  adornment  save  at  their  intersection  where  a small,  angular  ornament 


Early  Anatolian  Rugs. 


43 


is  regularly  used.  Small  ornaments,  similar  to  these,  decorate  the  bodies  of  the 
animals.  The  colors  are  mainly  yellow  and  blue  or  yellow  and  red  in  combination 
with  white  and  black.  One  of  the  pictures  showing  such  rugs  is  "The  Betrothal  of 
Mary”  by  Niccolo  die  Buonaccorso  of  Siena.  This  painting  is  in  the  National 
Gallery  in  London  (No.  1199;  painted  about  1380,  Fig.  65).  It  shows  very  conven- 
tionalized yellow  and  red  birds  which  are  seemingly  eagles,  standing  in  opposite 
representation  upon  a red  and  yellow  ground  respectively.  There  is  a similar  rug 
in  one  of  the  Madonna  pictures  of  the  Berlin  Gallery  ascribed  to  Lippo  Memmi 
(Nr.  1072.  Fig.  66).  This  picture  was  painted  about  1350.  The  fields  show  two 
long  legged  eagles  in  heraldic  representation  on  either  side  of  a conventionalized 
tree.  The  framings  and  the  borders  show  only  thin  ornamentation.  The  large  pain- 
ting of  St.  Louis  of  Toulouse  by  Simone  Martini  in  S.  Lorenzo  of  Naples  shows 
a rug  with  a double  eagle  repeated  in  all  the  fields.  This  painting  is  twenty  or 
thirty  years  earlier.  A rug  in  Giotto’s  famous  triptych  in  the  sacristy  of  St. 
Peter  in  Rome,  dating  from  the  end  of  the  13th  century,  has  the  same  decoration. 
Another  animal  rug  of  similar  type  is  reproduced  in  a somewhat  older  religious 
painting  of  the  Sanctissima  Annunciata  in  Florence.  An  exact  description  of  this 
rug  is  impossible,  as  the  painting  is  an  object  of  worship,  only  visible  once  a 
year  at  a great  distance.  The  numerous  copies  of  this  painting  are  very  super- 
ficial. 

Most  of  the  reproductions  of  rugs  in  early  pictures  show  the  patterns  in  a 
very  much  reduced  scale.  When  we  try  to  imagine  these  patterns  in  their  actual 
size,  they  seem  strikingly  bare  and  unimaginative.  Although  the  Konia  patterns 
would  lead  us  to  expect  such  simple  designs,  we  must  not  think  that  these  pain- 
tings reproduce  the  original  rugs  with  exactitude.  Every  building,  every  piece  of 
furniture,  all  textile  patterns  and  all  the  objects  of  art  in  the  pictures  of  Giotto  and 
his  followers,  when  compared  with  the  originals,  appear  as  a kind  of  abbreviation, 
and  without  doubt  this  is  also  true  of  the  rugs  of  this  early  period.  On  the  other 
hand,  we  may  accept  without  question  the  representations  of  rugs  by  artists  of  the 
Quattrocento,  who  loved  to  devote  themselves^  to  the  smallest  details;  who  cons- 
cientiously reproduced  every  brocade  pattern  in  the  robes  of  their  saints. 

We  may  only  make  a general  assumption  as  to  the  exact  origin  of  the  rugs 
thus  rendered  by  the  artists.  These  pieces  were  probably  brought  from  the  regions 
of  the  Near  East  then  accessible  to  Italian  trade  — Anatolia  and  Armenia,  and 
in  rare  instances  from  Syria  also.  It  is  likewise  probable  that  they  came  from  dis- 
tricts near  the  sea.  Unfortunately  the  authors  of  the  13  th  and  14  th  centuries 
allude  to  rugs  only  incidentally  and  casually.  However,  they  mention  Anatolia  as 
the  home  of  a flourishing  rug  industry  and  speak  of  the  exportation  of  rugs  from 
Asia  Minor  to  Italy.  This  leaves  us  little  doubt  as  to  the  origin  of  this  early  class. 
In  it  we  may  easily  recognize  the  early  stages  of  the  so-called  Armenian  animal 
rugs,  which  then  served  as  a transition  to  the  masterpieces  of  the  Sefevi  period. 


So-called  Ushak  Rugs  from  Asia  Minor, 


We  have  already  mentioned  that  the  Asiatic  origin  of  one  of  the  types  of  rugs 
previously  described  has  been  questioned.  We  refer  to  the  “Polish”  rugs, 
as  they  were  erroneously  designated.  But  there  are  still  several  other  types  about 
which  similar  doubts  have  been  expressed,  and  indeed,  with  much  greater  justi- 
fication. If  the  well  known  Smyrna  rugs  are  included  in  this  class,  we  must  admit 
that  they  were  made  for  Asia.  Indeed,  they  are  almost  the  sole  antique  specimens 
for  which  we  can  prove  an  exact  region  of  manufacture.  But  they  were  probably 
made  in  response  to  orders  and  commissions  from  Europe,  and  perhaps  even  under 
partial  European  supervision.  Therefore,  they  cannot  be  placed  among  the  purely 
Oriental  rugs. 

The  manufacture  of  rugs  in  Smyrna  and  the  environs  is  one  of  the  most  recent 
industries  of  this  kind  in  Asia  Minor.  But  nevertheless,  it  adhered  most  carefully 
to  the  old  design  and  technique.  The  coarse  wool,  loose  knotting,  high  pile  and 
subdued  color  harmony  characteristic  of  this  type  distinguish  them  from  all  old 
Oriental  rugs. 

Another  unusual  feature  of  these  rugs  is  that  they  are  approximately  square, 
instead  of  long  and  narrow.  Many  Dutch  and  English  houses,  and  particularly 
those  of  the  18th  century,  are  furnished  with  Smyrna  rugs  which  exactly  fit  the 
rooms  where  they  lie.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  such  rugs  were  made  to  order. 
Furthermore,  the  patterns  of  these  rugs  are  not  individual  ones,  but  copies  of  diffe- 
rent old  designs.  The  most  common  type  are  those  with,  patterns  reproduced  in 
Figs.  67,  68,  74.  These  designs,  in  combination  with  a simple  scattered  flower 
pattern,  have  been  repeated  since  the  17th  century  with  little  change.  So  we  may 
assume  that  this  industry  was  started  either  in  or  near  Smyrna  by  the  European 
colony  which  flourished  there  and  whose  members  were  mostly  Dutch.  European 
orders  were  executed  by  Oriental  workmen.  This  explains  the  frequent  appearance 
of  such  rugs  in  Europe,  especially  in  Holland  and  England.  It  also  explains  their 
long  popularity  and  their  adherence  to  the  old  traditions.  On  the  other  hand,  it 
likewise  accounts  for  the  imitation  of  Smyrna  rugs  when  the  modern  rug  industry 
was  founded  in  Europe. 

The  old  prototypes  which  interest  us  particularly  have  also  been  attributed  to 
Smyrna,  because  of  the  similarity  of  their  patterns.  This  attribution  might  be  correct, 
if  one  interprets  it  as  the  surrounding  province  for  which  Smyrna  was  the  export 
center,  and  not  the  city  itself.  But  since  there  is  still  a center  of  production  in  this 
district  whose  recent  products  are  similar  to  some  of  the  old  types,  we  are  justified 
in  transferring  the  term  “Ushak”  rugs  from  the  later  to  the  earlier  group. 

Among  the  old  specimens  of  this  family  there  are  various  types,  which  differ 
in  design  but  are  related  in  color  and  technique.  As  a rule  they  show  some  form 
of  the  characteristic  medallion  composition  and  in  this  respect,  as  well  as  in  details 


So-called  Ushak  Rugs  from  Asia  Minor. 


45 


of  the  decoration,  remind  one  of  certain  Sefevi  patterns.  Their  date  also  corresponds 
approximately  with  that  of  the  Sefevi  rugs,  so  that  Persian  influence  may  well  be 
taken  for  granted.  This  is  most  apparent  in  a pattern  which  agrees  approximately 
with  that  of  most  of  the  animal  rugs  and  some  of  the  rugs  with  inanimate  design 
(cf.  fig.  23  and  especially  fig.  25).  The  field  shows  a round  central  shield  of 
zigzag  outline  with  delicate  attached  motives  at  either  end,  and  the  corner  motives 
consist  of  more  or  less  exact  sectors  of  the  central  shield  with  very  small  heart- 
shaped  motives  attached  toward  the  inside.  Sometimes,  especially  in  particularly 
large  rugs,  a section  of  the  central  shield  is  repeated  on  the  long  sides  of  the  rug, 
generally  that  part,  which  is  cut  off  by  the  border.  The  design  of  these  fields 
shows  varicolored  and  elaborately  interlaced  vines  with  small,  conventionalized 
flowers  and  leaves.  A somewhat  similar  design  fills  the  ground  of  the  center  field. 
It  has  the  appearance  of  a scattered  flower  pattern,  for  its  slender  vines  are  com- 
pletely subordinated.  The  border,  framed  by  two  narrow  strips  with  a ribbon-like 
pattern,  usually  shows  a vine  design  with  alternating  flowers  and  leaves  of  very 
slender,  conventionalized  form.  The  cloud  band  with  scattered  flowers  between  is 
only  used  occasionally.  Interlaced  Cufic  characters  are  still  rarer.  In  the  central 
medallion  and  in  the  corners  we  find  large  and  beautifully  formed  arabesques.  The 
colors  of  the  ground  are  usually  deep  and  strong.  As  a rule  the  center  field  is  red 
or  reddish  brown,  the  border  dark  blue.  The  design  is  in  bright  yellow,  bright 
blue,  green,  with  yellow  contours  etc. 

Rugs  of  this  kind,  which  are  generally  of  considerable  or  even  very  large  size, 
are  not  rare  in  the  Orient.  They  were  particularly  common  in  Italian  churches  until 
rather  recently.  They  are  found  fairly  often  in  those  of  Spain,  Portugal,  Tyrol  and 
southern  Germany.  From  the  churches  they  found  their  way  through  the  art  trade 
into  most  of  the  large  museums  of  decorative  art  and  into  many  private  homes, 
where  unfortunately,  they  are  soon  destroyed  by  daily  use.  One  of  the  most  beau- 
tiful examples,  both  in  coloring  and  design,  belonged  to  Count  Gregor  Stroganoff 
in  Rome  (Fig.  67).  He  bought  it  in  1883  from  the  sale  of  the  Castellani  collection 
which  offered  a rich  choice  of  interesting  old  rugs,  almost  all  of  which  original  ly 
came  from  Italian  Churches.  Proffessor  Gustav  Guterbock  in  Berlin  owned  formerly 
an  excellently  preserved  rug  of  this  type  almost  29  feet  (9  m.)  long,  with  high  pile. 
Other  examples  are  in  St.  Michael’s  Court  Church  in  Munich,  in  the  Chamber 
of  Trade  and  Commerce  in  Bozen,  in  the  possession  of  Baron  Haniel,  Berlin  etc. 

The  date  of  these  rugs  may  be  exactly  determined  because  of  their  compara- 
tively frequent  appearance  in  old  paintings  of  widely  different  schools.  We  will 
only  mention  a few  of  the  most  important  of  these.  The  earliest  date  is  gained 
from  a remarkable  representation  of  the  family  of  Henry  VIII  of  England  which 
was  painted  by  order  of  Queen  Elizabeth  in  about  1570.  This  picture  was  shown 
in  the  Tudor  exhibition  in  London  in  1888,  No.  158.  Next  comes  the  rug  in  a 
Spanish  picture  — the  large  Zurbaran  in  the  Louvre,  which  was  painted  about  1622. 
A rug  of  the  same  pattern  is  in  the  portrait  of  Princess  Margarita  Theresa  by 
Velasquez.  This  picture,  which  is  in  the  Court  Museum  of  Vienna,  was  painted 
about  1656.  Various  Dutch  paintings  which  show  the  same  type  of  rugs  belong  to 
the  same  period  — the  large  Jan  Vermeer  in  the  Dresden  Gallery  (dated  1656),  the 
“Concert"  by  G.  Terborch  in  the  National  Gallery  in  London  and  others.  This 
pattern  does  not  appear  upon  later  paintings.  According  to  the  pictorial  represen- 
tations, the  change  which  it  shows  in  the  course  of  almost  a century  is  a very  slight 
one.  The  later  period  can  only  be  distinguished  from  the  earlier  one  by  greater 
simplicity,  clearer  arrangement  and  by  the  angular  design  of  the  leaves  and  flowers, 


46 


Bode-Kuhnel,  Antique  Rugs  from  the  near  east. 


especially  those  in  the  small  borders.  On  the  other  hand,  numerous  rugs  which 
still  appear  in  the  mosques  of  Constantinople,  Smyrna  and  the  neighborhood,  down 
to  the  rugs  now  made  in  the  Ushak  region,  show  the  gradual  degeneration  of  this 
type.  In  the  last  examples  we  may  only  recognize  a weak  remnant  of  the  vigorous 
style  of  the  older  rugs. 

A medium-sized  rug  in  the  Poldi  Pezzoli  Museum  in  Milan  is  of  particular 
interest  for  the  age  of  this  large  star  medallion  pattern  and  its  evolution.  The  blade 
background  forms  a strong  contrast  with  the  large  dark  red  medallion  star  of  simple 
outline,  which  fills  practically  the  entire  field  with  its  small  medallions  longitudinally 
attached  and  with  the  small  sectors  repeated  in  the  four  corners.  Because  of  the 
thin,  ribbon-like  design,  the  Saracenic  flowers  and  arabesques  can  only  be  deci- 
phered with  difficulty.  But  in  the  border,  the  flowers,  at  any  rate,  have  a fuller, 
more  naturalistic  form.  On  the  other  hand,  the  angular  vines  encircling  these 
flowers  scarcely  allow  one  to  guess  the  original  floral  forms  and  the  composition 
of  elongated  fields  with  flowers  and  round  star  medallions.  If  one  has  not  seen  old 
rugs  in  large  numbers,  the  hardening  of  all  forms  and  the  rough  knotting  causes 
one  to  conclude  at  first  glance  that  this  rug  is  a late  decadent  imitation  of  the 
original  pattern.  But  a careful  examination  reveals  clearly  that  it  is  an  early  spe- 
cimen which  perhaps  goes  back  to  about  1500.  This  conclusion  is  supported  by 
the  early  style  of  the  design  of  the  small  borders  which  is  very  similar  to  that  of 
rugs  upon  late  Quattrocento  pictures.  It  is  confirmed  by  the  primitive,  but  not  at 
all  careless  technique,  and  above  all,  by  the  deep,  powerful  coloring.  The  fine 
preservation  of  the  black  ground  is  especially  significant,  as  in  16  th  century  rugs 
and  particularly  in  those  from  later  times,  this  color  was  entirely  eaten  away  by 
the  dyes. 

A very  fine  early  rug  of  this  class,  illustrated  in  an  excellent  colored  repro- 
duction, is  attributed  by  Prisse  d’Avennes,  (l’Art  ArabeUI,  Plate  153),  to  the  18th  cen- 
tury. At  the  same  time  he  describes  another  rug  (Plate  150),  also  in  colored  repro- 
duction, as  a work  of  the  14th  century,  although  the  similarity  of  this  rug  to  those 
with  the  design  we  have  just  described,  makes  such  a difference  in  dating  very 
improbable.  However,  the  frequent  appearance  of  this  second  type  of  rug  in  pain- 
tings proves  that  it  was  made  at  almost  the  same  time  as  the  first  example  cited. 
Its  center  field  shows  an  alternation  of  large,  eight-pointed  stars  of  delicate  shape 
with  smaller  four  pointed  ones  of  similar  configuration.  On  both  sides,  these  stars 
are  flanked  by  similar  smaller  and  larger  stars  respectively,  which  are  cut  in  half 
by  the  border.  As  these  rugs  are  always  of  medium  or  large  size,  the  total  length 
of  the  pattern  is  formed  by  three  or  five  central  stars  with  one  half  star  on  both 
small  sides  of  the  rug.  The  inside  of  these  stars  is  decorated  with  delicate  and 
angular  vines  with  flowers  and  arabesques  of  slender  design,  which  we  may  com- 
pare to  those  of  the  round  middle  shields  of  the  previous  group.  The  ground  of 
the  center  field  is  similarly  decorated  with  a few  flowers  on  slender  vines  of  angular 
design.  The  border  of  this  type  of  rug  usually  shows  either  the  cloud  band  com- 
bined with  a few  flowers  or  slender  interlacings  of  vines,  framed  on  either  side  by 
a small  border  with  very  slender  ribbon-like  flower  vines  in  conventionalized  form 
(Fig.  68).  In  this  class  of  rugs  the  colors  are  still  more  stereotyped  than  in  those 
above.  The  ground  of  the  center  field  is  usually  a beautiful  carmine  with  scattered 
flowers  in  brownish  or  green  tones.  The  star  medallions  have  a deep  blue  ground 
with  a yellow  design  and  the  ground  of  the  border  is  generally  sky  blue. 

Early  in  1914  three  such  rugs  from  the  collection  of  the  Earl  of  Dalkeith,  with 
the  old  type  of  cartouche  border  and  the  insignia  of  Sir  Edward  Montagu  were 


So-called  Ushak  Rugs  from  Asia  Minor. 


47 


exhibited  in  the  South  Kensington  Museum.  One  of  these  rugs  showed  large  and 
small  stars  ranged  in  gradually  increasing  numbers  along  the  width  (Fig.  69).  These 
pieces  are  of  inestimable  importance,  as  two  of  them  are  dated  1584  and  the  third 
1585.  This  is  a very  important  and  unassailable  date  for  the  history  of  rug  knot- 
ting, in  Anatolia,  as  important  as  the  Ardebil  rug  for  Persia.  A.  F.  Kendrick  has 
recently  been  inclined  to  the  theory  that  these  rugs  were  woven  in  England,  although 
they  are  in  the  original  Ushak  style.  We  continue  to  believe  that  they  are  Oriental 
rugs,  woven  to  English  order.  Upon  the  evidence  of  paintings  from  all  the  nations 
which  at  that  time  imported  rugs  from  the  Orient,  this  group  may  be  dated  from 
the  middle  of  the  16th  to  the  middle  of  the  17th  century.  Among  those  showing 
especially  characteristic  examples,  the  famous  “Ring”,  by  Paris  Bordone,  deserves 
particular  mention.  This  picture,  which  is  in  the  Academy  of  Venice,  was  painted 
about  the  middle  of  the  16  th  century.  In  this  picture  the  throne  of  the  Doge 

stands  upon  a magnificent  Ushak  rug  of  this  type. 

A similar  rug  is  shown  in  a large  portrait  dating  from  1614,  painted  by  Marcus 
Gerard  who  was  then  working  in  England.  A painting  by  Zurbaran  in  the  Raczynski 
Gallery  in  Berlin,  dating  some  twenty  or  thirty  years  later,  shows  another  such  rug 
lying  on  the  floor.  Rugs  of  this  class  appeared  rather  frequently  in  Italian  trade. 
One  example  of  particularly  beautiful  color  and  design,  is  owned  by  the  Church  of 
St.  Ann  in  Augsburg.  A similar,  although  incomplete  specimen,  belongs  to  the 
Museum  of  Decorative  Art  in  Dresden;  an  early,  small  specimen  of  excellent  quality 
to  Dr.  Fritz  Harck  in  Seusslitz;  a finely  preserved  large  rug  to  Count  Donhoff- 
Friedrichstein.  Other  examples  are  owned  by  the  Austrian  Museum,  the  Kaiser 
Friedrich  Museum  in  Berlin,  Mr.  Williams  in  Norristown  and  others. 

Another  rug  from  the  Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum  shows  this  type  in  incomplete 
development  (Fig.  70).  The  stars  in  the  center  field  have  not  yet  taken  a definite, 
entirely  regular  form,  while  their  design  shows  full  and  beautiful  flowers  of  angular 
design  instead  of  the  later  thin  and  rigid  interpretation.  But  in  the  border  this  con- 
ventionalization has  advanced  further.  The  coloring  is  very  deep  and  magnificent. 
The  grounds  of  the  center  field  and  of  the  border  are  dark  cherry  red;  the  medal- 
lions are  dark  blue.  The  design  and  conventionalization  prove  that  this  isolated 
type  belongs  to  the  beginning  of  the  16  th  century. 

A pattern  appearing  even  more  seldom  (Fig.  71),  is  related  to  all  three  schemes 
we  have  mentioned:  — to  the  first  in  composition,  to  the  second  in  design  and  to 
the  third  in  certain  details.  As  the  technique  and  colors,  too,  are  identical,  it  is 
safe  to  place  this  rug  as  early  as  the  16  th  century.  The  deep  blue  ground  is  de- 
corated with  the  usual  vines,  which  are  generally  yellow.  As  in  the  above  men- 
tioned type,  the  center  field  shows  either  three  or  five  medallions  with  a red  ground. 
These  are  of  elongated  hexagonal  shape  and  of  equal  size.  On  both  sides  of  the 
rug,  between  these  central  medallions,  are  stars  cut  in  half  by  the  border.  They 
have  a blue  ground  and  small  attached  medallions.  Analogies  can  easily  be  found 
for  the  floral  and  arabesque  decoration  and  their  conventionalization,  as  well  as  for 
the  coloring  and  the  design  of  the  border.  Besides  the  example  from  the  Austrian 
Museum  above  mentioned,  a very  good  specimen  of  this  type  belongs  to  Baron 
H.  von  Tucher  in  Nuremberg  (Fig.  72).  This  rug  is  simpler  and  clearer  in  design 
and  stronger  in  its  color  contrasts.  Related  to  this  second  group  is  another,  pattern, 
which  is  met  quite  frequently  and  which  we  illustrate  by  a magnificent  specimen 
of  archaic  type  with  beautiful  full  flowers  and  a beautifel  border  of  extremely  pure 
design.  (Fig.  73). 

A very  different  motif,  of  which  to  our  knowledge,  there  is  only  one  example 


48 


Bode  Kflhnel,  Antique  Rugs  from  the  near  east. 


(Fig.  74),  belongs  to  this  class.  This  motif  is  of  peculiar  importance  for  the  prece- 
ding as  well  as  for  the  later  period  and  shows  a more  compact  arrangement  of  the 
second  pattern  which  we  discussed  above.  Angular  vines  with  thin  and  scarcely 
recognizable  leaves  and  blossoms  of  thin  form,  twine  in  both  directions  from  one 
star  medallion  to  another.  In  this  way  the  large  floral  stars  are  enclosed  in  a 
rhomboidal  frame.  The  border  shows  the  cloud  band  with  scattered  flowers  between, 
exactly  as  in  the  other  pieces.  (Fig.  68).  The  rich,  brilliant  coloring  also  corre- 
sponds with  that  in  the  other  rugs.  The  ground  of  the  center  field  is  a deep  blue, 
which  is  rare  in  rugs  of  this  type,  and  that  of  the  border  and  of  the  large  star 
flowers  is  vermilion.  The  decoration  is  in  bright  yellow,  various  shades  of  green, 
bright  blue,  salmon,  red,  and  white.  These  characteristics  make  it  most  probable  that  this 
rug  originated  in  the  same  region  as  the  other  varieties.  The  date  of  its  origin  is 
also  approximately  the  same.  This  variant  of  the  Ushak  pattern  has  been  a favo- 
rite design  in  the  “Smyrna  rugs"  manufactured  for  Europe  and  has  been  copied 
since  the  17th  century. 


In  connection  with  the  Ushak  group  above  described  several  types  of  prayer 
rugs  also  originated,  which  in  accordance  with  their  purpose  are  of  small  size. 
These  small  dimensions  necessitated  a selection  from  the  variety  of  motives  deve- 
loped in  the  patterns  of  a larger  scale.  One  of  the  commoner  designs,  in  which 
for  the  sake  of  symmetry  the  niche  is  used  on  both  ends,  appears  in  paintings  for 
nearly  a century80.  Formerly  originals  of  this  type  appeared  rather  frequently  in 
the  Italian  art  trade  (Fig  75).  The  center  field  shows  a single  colored  ground 
bearing  a small  four  or  six  sided  star  with  a detached  conventionalized  hanging 
lamp  in  each  niche.  The  corner  pieces  have  motives  which  may  be  recognized  as 
degenerated  cloud  bands.  The  border  shows  either  the  same  motif  combined  with 
scattered  flowers  or  slender  interlacings  of  flowers  and  leaves.  Occasionally  the 
arabesque  is  also  used,  very  much  as  in  the  large  patterns  discussed  above.  In 
addition,  we  generally  have  the  two  typical  small  borders,  sometimes  even  a larger 
number.  The  colors  are  very  deep  and  gleaming.  The  center  field  is  a vigorous 
red  which  contrasts  with  the  deep  blue  ground  of  the  border.  The  small  star  in 
the  central  medallions  is  also  deep  blue;  the  corner  motives  are  usually  deep  green. 
The  design  of  the  medallions  as  well  as  of  the  border  is  in  varied  colors,  with  red 
predominating.  Rugs  of  this  kind  are  still  quite  common  in  private  collections 
(Baron  von  Tucher,  Dr.  Bode  and  others).  They  also  appear  in  paintings  dating 
from  the  middle  of  the  16th  century.  Among  these  are  the  double  portrait  by 
Francesco  Veneziano,  dating  from  1561  (belonging  to  Mr.  Holford,  Westonbirt); 
many  pictures  by  Tintoretto  (for  example,  those  in  the  Brera  in  Milan);  a small 
painting  by  Rottenhammer  in  the  Berlin  Gallery  (from  the  beginning  of  the  17th  cen- 
tury); a painting  by  Matteo  Rosselli  in  the  Florence  Academy,  dated  about  1620 
and  many  others.  However,  they  are  not  found  much  later  than  this  date. 

Another  type,  of  the  same  small  dimensions  and  very  similar  composition, 
showing  a much  more  elaborate  decoration  in  the  field  of  the  niche,  and  a much 
weaker  border  design  (Fig.  76),  is  in  the  Hungarian  Museum  in  Budapest,  and 
another  in  Skokloster,  Sweden.  There  is  no  star  in  the  center  field.  The  corners 
are  decorated  with  slender  arabesques,  and  the  center  shows  slender  vines  with 
angularly  designed  blossoms  and  leaves  growing  from  two  vase-like  hanging  lamps 


So-called  Ushak  Rugs  from  Asia  Minor. 


49 


in  the  middle.  In  the  border,  elongated  cartouches  alternate  with  small,  eight  pointed 
stars.  The  former  show  delicate  vines  with  small  flowers,  arabesque  motives,  and 
beautifully  conventionalized  fully  opened  flowers.  In  a somewhat  later  stage  even 
this  simple  border  pattern  is  further  reduced  to  cartouche  motives,  and  the  field  and 
corner  designs  are  also  simplified  as  much  as  possible  (Fig.  77).  This  is  the  most 
current  type  of  the  so-called  Transylvanian  or  „Seven  Mountain"  rugs.  This  desig- 
nation is  incorrect,  but  it  is  still  in  favor  with  dealers  and  collectors,  probably 
because  the  rugs  were  found  so  frequently  in  Hungary  and  Transylvania.  Other  varieties 
showing  less  and  less  connection  with  the  Ushak  group,  have  only  a single  central 
motif.  The  border  is  somewhat  wider,  with  cloud  bands  or  similar  motives.  The 
colors  of  all  of  these  rugs  are  usually  pure  and  vigorous.  The  ground  of  the  center 
field  is  generally  red,  more  seldom  blue.  The  period  of  their  manufacture  may  be 
established  from  pictures  of  the  Dutch  school,  in  which  such  rugs  frequently  appear 
We  may  mention  paintings  by  Thomas  de  Keyser,  C.  de  Vos,  P.  Codde,  C.  Netscher, 
Jan  Verkolje,  A.  de  Snaphaan,  Cornelis  van  Plan  and  others.  They  also  appear  rarely  in 
the]works  of  the  later  Italians,  such  as  B.  Castiglione.  The  last  paintings  showing  rugs  of 
this  type  are  the  large  portrait  of  the  Empress  Maria  Theresia  in  the  Belvedere  in 
Vienna  and  a painting  by  Battoni  in  the  Ermitage  in  Petrograd.  Therefore,  they 
were  made  some  time  between  the  beginning  of  the  17  th  and  the  middle  of  the 
18th  centuries.  In  earlier  times  originals  of  this  type  were  frequently  found  in 
Transylvanian  and  Hungarian  churches  and  occasionally  in  those  of  Poland,  Italy 
and  Southern  Germany,  where  the  dealers  secured  them. 

According  to  the  above  evidence,  one  might  be  tempted  to  ascribe  all  prayer 
rugs  of  Asia  Minor  to  the  seventeenth  century.  Fortunately,  there  are  still  a few 
examples  which  prove  that  the  Mihrab  pattern  led  to  characteristic  forms  even 
earlier  than  this  date,  although  such  examples  are  very  rare.  In  fact,  there  is  only 
one  specimen  of  this  entire  class  to  serve  as  proof,  but  it  is  a most  conclusive  piece 
of  evidence.  This  is  the  rug  formerly  belonging  to  Mr.  von  Angeli  in  Vienna  and 
now  in  the  Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum  in  Berlin.  It  is  a beautifully  harmonized  rug 
with  a large  cloud  band  of  grandiose  design.  This  fills  the  entire  lower  field  and 
encloses  an  exquisitely  conventionalized  full  Saracenic  flower.  (See  color  plate.) 
The  main  motif,  the  smaller  ornaments  and  particularly  the  severe  arabesques  in  the 
corners,  are  of  archaic  conception.  Not  only  the  design,  but  also  the  coloring,  which 
is  skillfully  harmonized  with  the  predominating  note  of  dark  blue,  and  the  very 
small  double  borders  prove  the  early  origin  of  this  rug.  The  knotting  is  rather 
coarse,  but  it  cannot  weaken  the  striking  effect  of  this  really  perfect  work  of  art. 
This  piece  is  without  doubt  older  than  all  the  Ushak  types.  However,  a close  rela- 
tionship with  several  of  them  is  not  to  be  denied,  even  though  the  different  com- 
position almost  conceals  it. 


* * 
* 


There  is  another  type  of  rug  related  to  the  Ushak  family  in  many  respects. 

This  group  originated  in  a different  region  of  Asia  Minor  and  is  difficult  to  classify. 

It  has  a white,  or  infrequently  a light  yellow  ground  and  a center  field  with  an 
all  over  pattern.  Such  rugs,  which  formerly  appeared  rather  frequently  in  Italian 
trade  and  occasionally  in  that  of  Southern  Germany  and  Turkey,  show  a characte- 
ristic conventionalization  of  archaic  floral  forms  in  geometrical  rigidity  of  design. 

The  pattern  in  this  type  consists  of  rhomboidal  forms,  repeated  in  regular  disposition 

Bode-KDhnel.  4 


50 


Bode-Kuhnel,  Antique  Rugs  from  the  near  east, 


between  cattered  sflowers.  This  rhomboidal  design,  which  has  been  interpreted  as 
a pattern  of  birds  pointing  in  two  directions,  was  more  probably  derived  from  an 
early  leaf  motif.  The  period  when  this  pattern  originated  (Fig.  78),  is  proved  by 
its  appearance  upon  a picture  by  Varotari  in  the  Ermitage  in  Petrograd,  painted 
about  1625  and  upon  a fresco  by  Peter  Candid  in  the  Munich  Royal  Palace.  Accor- 
ding to  this  evidence  these  rugs  were  manufactured  from  about  the  end  of  the  16  th 
to  the  middle  of  the  17  th  century.  The  border  is  of  characteristic  Ushak  type.  It 
either  shows  the  cloud  band  combined  with  slender  vines  bearing  small  flowers  or 
a characteristic  reciprocal  triangle  design  in  which  completely  conventionalized  pal- 
mettoes  may  be  recognized  between  distorted  arabesques.  This  same  border  motif 
is  occasionally  used  elsewhere,  quite  frequently  in  combination  with  a rarer  center 
pattern  which  shows  three  superimposed  globes  above  two  narrow  bands.  (Fig  79.) 
This  motif  reminds  one  of  the  Tschintamani  symbol,  which  we  found  occasionally 
in  rugs  of  the  Sefevi  period.  (Fig.  12.)  Like  the  rugs  just  described,  this  type,  too,, 
usually  has  a white  ground;  the  design  is  of  rich  and  vigorous  coloring.  The 
“lightning  and  globe”,  or  “cloud  and  triple  moon”  motives  are  found  in  entirely 
analogous  design  upon  Turkish  brocades  about  1600,  so  that  the  dating  adopted 
above  seems  to  fit  both  groups.  In  addition  to  the  specimens  in  the  collection  of 
the  author,  the  following  collectors  own  rugs  of  this  type,  most  of  them  of  large 
size:  Prince  Schwarzenberg  in  Vienna,  privy  Councillor  Zander  in  Berlin,  Mr.  Wil- 
liams in  Norristown,  Dr.  Kennedy  in  Boston,  the  Antiquarian  Simonetti  in  Rome  and 
many  others,  besides  specimens  in  several  museums  of  decorative  art. 


Rugs  from  Hsia  Minor;  So-called  Holbein  Rugs. 

One  of  the  characteristics  of  the  early  Asia  Minor  animal  rugs  was  the  trans- 
position of  motives  into  a severe,  even  mathematical  style.  In  other  instances 
the  most  varied  plant  motives  were  transformed  into  a geometrical  pattern  and  in 
such  cases  it  is  just  as  difficult  to  recognize  the  blossoms  and  leaves  as  the  animal 
forms.  The  farther  we  go  toward  the  beginning  of  the  16th  century,  the  stronger 
this  tendency  appears,  and  in  the  15th  century  it  seems  to  have  been  fairly  general. 
Yet  even  in  this  period  the  relation  to  plant  forms  may  always  be  established  with 
careful  study. 

This  is  especially  true  of  a type  which  was  imported  to  Europe  in  such  great 
numbers  that  even  today  hundreds  of  originals  remain.  Rugs  with  this  pattern  also 
appear  in  old  paintings  far  more  frequently  than  any  other  type  (Fig.  80).  From 
the  evidence  of  pictures  we  may  at  once  deduce  an  unusually  long  period  of  manu- 
facture with  but  slightly  changed  design-.  We  may  follow  the  pattern  for  nearly 
two  centuries.  The  basis  of  the  design  consists  of  angularly  conventionalized  vines 
bearing  the  fully  opened  “pomegranate”  or  “palmetto”  flowers,  combined  with  the 
arabesque.  We  first  mentioned  this  type  of  composition  in  our  description  of  the 
Persian  rugs,  and  found  it  again  and  again  in  the  most  varied  groups.  The  design 
covers  the  entire  center  field  like  a network.  In  the  earliest  period  the  border  usually 
shows  ornamentally  transformed  Cufic  characters  which  gradually  become  an  angular 
ribbon  pattern.  Later  a border  appears  with  alternating  fields  of  severe  plant  or- 
nament. Occasionally  the  cloud  band  or  thin  flower  vines  are  found  instead.  During 
the  17  th  century  the  design  of  the  center  field  as  well  as  that  of  the  border  be- 
came increasingly  obscure  and  coarse  and  the  knotting  looser  and  of  poorer  quality. 
The  choice  of  colors  is  also  true  to  type  — a rather  bright  red  ground  in  the 
center  Field,  showing  a design  in  yellow  with  some  blue  and  occasionally  some 
green  touches.  The  border  has  a somewhat  richer  design  upon  a blue  or  green 
field.  Occasionally  one  finds  more  lively  color  contrasts  and  an  approach  to  the 
Ushak  types  (Fig.  81).  The  small  prayer  rug  size  is  the  most  frequent,  but  larger 
pieces  are  also  no  rarity. 

The  oldest  paintings  showing  this  type  of  design  are  works  of  the  Venetian 
school.  Let  us  mention  paintings  by  Lorenzo  Lotto,  Girolamo  de’  Libri  (in  San 
Giorgio  in  Braida,  about  1520  and  in  the  Museo  Civico  in  Verona,  dated  1530);  Luca 
Longhi  (1544);  a portrait  of  Cesare  Borghia,  attributed  to  Bronzino  (1535),  which 
in  1819  was  secured  by  Baron  Alphonse  Rothschild  from  the  Borghese  Gallery  and 
many  others.  This  type  of  rugs  is  also  found  very  frequently  in  the  works  of  the 
later  painters  of  the  Netherlands  — from  Flanders  as  well  as  from  Holland.  Jan 
Brueghel,  Frans  Francken,  Cornelis  de  Vos,  Simon  de  Vos,  Hendrik  van  Steenwyck, 
and  other  painters  from  Antwerp  must  obviously  have  possessed  such  rugs  them- 
selves. They  are  equally  frequent  in  the  work  of  Gabriel  Metsu,  Gerard  Terborch, 


52 


Bode-Kiihnel,  Antique  Rugs  from  the  near  east. 


an  Steen,  Bernart  Fabritius,  Jan  van  Bronckhorst,  Nicolas  Maes,  Pieter  de  Hooch, 
Godfried  Schaldten  and  many  other  Dutch  painters.  Toward  the  end  of  the  17th 
century  this  class  of  rugs,  so  common  but  a short  time  before,  suddenly  disappears 
from  paintings.  However,  well-preserved  examples  are  not  rare  in  museums  of  deco- 
rative art.  A beautiful  early  example  is  owned  by  the  Frankfort  Museum  of  Deco- 
rative Art. 

A similar  design  of  less  compact  composition  and  probably  coming  from  a 
different  region  of  Anatolia,  is  the  basic  principle  of  another  class  of  rugs  which 
also  appears  frequently  in  old  paintings.  The  center  field  of  this  type  is  usually 
divided  into  complicated  star  and  cross  forms,  sometimes  into  other  geometrical 
figures  (Fig.  82,  83).  In  these  rugs  we  find  interlaced  ribbons  with  angular  turns, 
and  similar  linear  designs  combined  with  other  motives  whose  original  plant  forms 
may  still  be  guessed.  The  arabesque,  in  particular,  may  still  be  discovered.  Small 
stars  of  kaleidoscopic  design  and  of  purely  mathematical  form  are  used  to  fill  in 
the  space  between  the  larger  ones.  The  main  border  pattern  consists  of  decora- 
tively  interlaced  ribbon  motives  in  white  upon  a colored  ground.  At  first  these  were 
an  imitation  of  Cufic  writing,  but  later  they  became  a purely  geometrical  shaft  or- 
nament. Occasionally  small  polygons  or  rosaces  alternating  with  stars  appear  as  a 
border  pattern,  and  in  earlier  examples  we  find  a thin  vine  motif  with  leaves.  The 
accompanying  border  occasionally  shows  the  zigzag  pattern  which  we  have  described 
in  another  connection. 

This  group  of  rugs  is  characterized  by  close  knotting  and  vigorous  coloring, 
generally  upon  a red  ground.  They  show  certain  points  of  similarity  with  several 
examples  of  Turkoman  work  which  have  probably  gone  through  a similar  evolution. 
We  may  trace  these  rugs  from  about  the  middle  of  the  15th  to  the  middle  of 
the  16th  century,  chiefly  in  Italian,  although  sometimes  in  German  paintings  and 
particularly  in  the  work  of  Hans  Holbein,  one  of  the  greatest  German  masters,  after 
whom  they  have  been  called.  The  following  list  comprises  a number  of  the  most 
important  paintings  which  show  the  designs  particulary  clearly:  Mantegna’s  famous  Ma- 
donna painting  in  S.  Zeno  in  Verona  (1459);  Carpaccio’s  series  with  the  story  of  St.  Ursula 
(1495)  in  the  Academy  of  Venice;  Pinturicchios’s  frescoes  in  the  Libreria  of  Sienna  dating 
from  1505;  a few  Madonna  paintings  by  Domenico  Ghirlandajo  in  the  Academy  and  in  the 
Uffizi  of  Florence  (about  1480);  a painting  by  Sebastiano  Mainardi  in  the  Gallery 
of  Naples;  Rafaellino’s  early  Madonna  in  the  Berlin  Callery  and  the  Family  of 
Licinio  Pordenone  in  Hampton  Court  (1524);  Bassano's  Madonna  in  the  Pinakothek 
in  Munich,  Hans  Holbein’s  Portrait  of  Gisze  in  the  Berlin  Gallery  (1532)  and  his 
“Two  Ambassadors”  in  the  National  Gallery  of  London  (about  1533);  the  fresco 
by  Piero  della  Francesca  in  San  Francesco  at  Rimini  (1451);  the  Annunciation  of 
Baldovinetti  in  San  Miniato  near  Florence  (about  1480);  the  early  masterpiece  of 
Lorenzo  di  Credi  in  the  cathedral  of  Pistoja  (about  1480);  Ercole  Roberti’s  throned 
Madonna  in  the  Brera  in  Milan  (about  1480);  and  paintings  in  the  same  museum 
by  Francesco  Bonsignori  and  Gaudenzio  Ferrari;  Mantegna’s  frescoes  in  the  castle 
at  Mantua  (soon  after  1460);  Badile’s  Madonna  in  the  Verona  Museum  (1546);  a 
man’s  portrait  by  Parmegianino  in  the  Naples  Museum;  another  by  Dosso  Dossi  in 
the  Corsini  Gallery  in  Rome  and  the  portrait  of  a cardinal  by  Pontormo  in  the  Gal- 
leria Borghese.  A rug  of  the  older  type  of  this  group  may  be  identified  in  a large 
portrait  group  of  the  Guildmasters  of  the  City  of  London.  This  group,  which  was  painted 
in  1604  by  one  of  the  Dutch  painters  working  in  England,  is  in  the  National  Por- 
trait Gallery.  Such  a late  representation  is  plausibly  explained  by  the  fact  that  the 
artist  showed  the  worthy  burghers  of  London  in  their  Guild  Chamber  in  which  the 


Rugs  from  Asia  Minor;  So-called  Holbein  Rugs. 


53 


rug  may  have  served  as  a table  covering  for  several  decades.  Another  interesting  indi- 
cation for  the  chronology  of  these  “Holbein"  rugs  is  given  by  a large  woolen  embroidery 
dated  1533,  which  Dr.  Kuhnel  saw  in  the  National  Swiss  Museum  in  Zurich.  This 
embroidery  was  intended  as  a wall  hanging  and  is  an  exact  copy  of  a Holbein  rug. 

For  a full  century  the  design  of  this  type  remains  almost  unchanged  except 
for  small  variations.  Until  some  years  ago  original  specimens  frequently  appeared 
in  Italy  and  in  Southern  Germany,  but  as  far  as  we  know,  never  in  Spain,  which  at 
that  time  still  had  an  important  rug  industry  of  its  own.  Examples  are  found  in 
the  collections  of  many  European  museums  of  decorative  art  and  they  still  appear 
occasionally  in  the  Italian  art  trade,  for  example,  in  the  collection  of  the  antiquarian 
Simonetti  in  Rome. 

Another  series  of  rugs  may  be  considered  as  a variety  of  the  present  type.  They 
show  the  same  character  of  draughtsmanship  and  seem  to  borrow  from  the  same 
Stock  of  motives.  However,  in  this  type  we  find  that  the  pattern  is  of  larger  pro- 
portions, since  only  a few  stars  fill  the  field.  In  the  other  type  the  stars  are  in 
close  rows  and  of  considerably  smaller  size,  and  therefore  not  in  very  strong  con- 
trast with  the  ground.  Original  rugs  of  this  second  type  are  not  any  too  frequent 
(Fig  84 — 86).  Their  vivid  colors  differentiate  them  sharply  from  the  other  more 
softly  toned  types.  Their  successors  may  be  found  in  several  types  of  the  later, 
so-called  Bergama  group.  Sometimes  they  have  been  rather  misleadingly  designated 
“Holbein  rugs"  because  this  German  master  repeatedly  used  such  rugs  in  his  pic- 
tures, as  well  as  the  smaller  patterned  ones  discussed  before.  Rugs  of  this  type  also 
appear  in  other  paintings  — especially  in  those  of  the  Flemish  and  Italian  schools 
They  are  always  in  severe  geometrical  conventionalization  and  are  most  frequent  in 
the  15  th  century.  The  pictures  of  Hans  Memling  are  rich  in  such  patterns.  Other 
rugs  of  this  type  are  found  in  the  paintings  of  Baldovinetti,  Ghirlandajo,  Raffaellino 
del  Garbo,  Crivelli,  Carpaccio,  Foppa  and  numerous  contemporary  painters.As  far  as  we 
know,  a portrait  by  Sofonisbe  Anguissola  in  the  Raczynski  Gallery  in  Berlin,  dating 
from  1560,  offers  the  latest  example.  In  this  instance  the  painter  perhaps  used  a 
rug  that  was  several  decades  old.  In  the  Venetian  paintings,  particularly  in  the 
Carpaccios,  these  patterns  are  reproduced  in  an  impressionistic  style,  so  as  to  render 
their  picturesque  effect.  In  the  others  they  appear  in  a strikingly  hard  and  severe 
interpretation,  although  the  specimens  preserved  show  a rather  free  design.  Conse- 
quently it  is  very  probable  that  the  artists  more  or  less  altered  their  different  models 
by  making  small  changes  or  striving  for  simplicity.  This  is  especially  true  of  Jan 
van  Eyck  and  his  pupil  Petrus  Christus,  who  liked  to  introduce  Gothic  motives.  It 
applies  also  to  various  paintings  of  the  Quattrocento,  among  others,  to  a panel  by 
Fra  Angelico  in  the  Academy  of  Florence,  to  Piero  della  Francesca’s  altar  paintings 
and  his  Annunciation  in  the  Uffizi,  and  a fresco  by  Foppa  in  the  Brera  dating 
from  1485.  On  the  other  hand,  Holbein  is  entirely  trustworthy,  since  his  accuracy 
of  reproduction  also  extended  to  Oriental  rugs.  Memling,  who  seldom  omits  the 
rug  at  Mary  s feet  in  his  pictures  of  the  throned  Madonna,  it  also  reliable  to  some 
extent.  The  colors  of  these  rugs  are  fresh  and  vigorous.  The  ground  tone  is  usually 
yellow  or  red;  the  borders  are  small  and  of  decorative,  conventionalized  design, 
either  with  inscriptions  or  plant  forms.  The  size  is  small  and  particularly  fit  to  be 
used  by  the  artists. 


The  So-called  Damascus  Rugs. 

LX  mong  the  Near  Eastern  rugs,  one  category  is  the  subject  of  especial 
contention.  This  group  is  completely  isolated  and  is  therefore  ascribed  to 
the  most  varied  regions  of  the  Mohammadan  world.  The  color  scheme  is  very 
striking  (Fig.  87).  A more  or  less  deep  cherry  red,  generally  used  as  the  back- 
ground, is  combined  with  bright  green  and  a few  touches  of  pure  blue,  producing 
a very  harmonious,  but  not  particularly  colorful  effect.  The  material  is  usually  the 
wool  of  the  Angora  sheep  which  has  a peculiar  lustre,  and  to  make  it  more  effec- 
tive, it  is  knotted  into  a silk  warp.  Occasionally  these  rugs  are  entirely  of 
silk  and  then  they  are  exceldingly  beautiful  because  of  the  soft  shimmer 
of  the  light  which  is  broken  into  thousands  of  hues  by  the  design.  The 
latter  consists  of  a very  pleasant  harmonization  of  manifold  geometrical  forms, 
kaleidoscopically  thrown  together,  with  small,  diversely  conventionalized  flower 
motives.  The  center  is  generally  formed  of  a large,  many  sided  star  medallion;  in 
very  large  rugs  several  of  these  stars  lie  next  to  each  other.  In  the  border  there 
is  frequently  an  alternation  of  circular  and  elongated  fields,  as  in  certain  of  the  Sefevi 
patterns.  However,  in  the  type  under  discussion,  neither  the  design  or  coloring 
sharply  differentiate  the  border  from  the  field. 

Rugs  of  this  kind  are  seldom  found  in  the  earlier  paintings,  perhaps  because 
of  their  less  striking  decoration.  They  may  only  be  definitely  authenticated  upon 
several  pictures  of  the  Venetian  school.  “The  Debate  of  St.  Stephen”  by  Car- 
paccio in  the  Brera  shows  the  pattern  very  plainly,  but  in  accordance  with  the 
artist's  technique,  the  reproduction  is  rather  superficial.  The  design  is  shown  much 
more  exactly  in  a portrait  by  G.  B.  Moroni,  dating  from  about  1550,  which  in 
1893  belonged  to  Charles  Fairfax  Murray  in  London.  On  the  other  hand,  originals 
of  this  type  are  not  rare.  Until  a short  time  ago  they  often  appeared  in  Italian 
churches  and  occasionally  in  those  of  southern  Germany,  from  which  they  were 
secured  by  dealers  and  museums.  In  exceptional  instances  the  bazaar  in  Con- 
stantinople also  offered  such  rugs  for  sale.  Most  of  the  rugs  of  this  type  are  in 
bad  condition,  because  the  fineness  and  perishable  nature  of  the  Angora  wool 
makes  them  unfit  to  withstand  usage  as  floor  rugs  in  the  churches.  J.  Lessing 
sets  the  date  of  their  origin  as  “about  the  middle  of  the  16th  century”.  However, 
the  manufactory  must  have  been  in  its  prime  a half  century  earlier,  as  is  proved 
by  the  above  mentioned  reproduction  by  Carpaccio  from  the  end  of  the  15th  cen- 
tury. Among  the  well-preserved  examples  we  may  mention  a specimen  in  the 
Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum  (Fig.  87),  a similar  rug,  which  was  lent  by  Count  Baillet 
Latour  to  the  Vienna  Exhibition,  and  a large  specimen  of  elongated  shape 
belonging  to  the  dealer  Sangiorgi  in  Rome,  formerly  in  the  Simonetti  collection."’1 
Most  beautiful  of  all  is  an  incomparable  silk  rug  formerly  in  the  possession  of 
the  Austrian  Imperial  family  and  now  property  of  the  Austrian  State,  which  is 


The  So-called  Damascus  Rugs. 


55 


without  question  a marvel  of  Oriental  knotting  technique  (Fig.  88).  Beautiful  fragments 
are  among  others  in  the  Berlin  Museum  of  Decorative  Art  and  in  the  Kennedy  collection 
in  Boston.  A rug  in  the  Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum  in  Berlin  (Fig.  89)  which  is  dupli- 
cated in  a few  other  collections,  belongs  unmistakably  to  the  same  group,  as  is 
proved  by  the  typical  coloring  and  other  characteristics.  But  at  the  same  time  its 
pattern  shows  a slight  relation  to  that  of  several  groups  of  Asia  Minor  rugs,  whch 
we  have  already  discussed.  Each  of  the  stars  in  the  center  is  completely  sur- 
rounded by  severely  conventionalized  small  cypresses,  rosaces  or  flowers.  As  an 
exceptional  instance,  this  rug  has  a border  which  is  entirely  different  from  the  field,  , 
except  in  coloring.  It  shows  two  palmetto  flowers  between  severe  arabesques  in  reci- 
procal arrangement.  Similar  patterns  are  found  in  paintings  from  the  first  half  of 
the  16th  century.  We  may  cite  as  an  example  the  altar  painting  by  Lorenzo  Lotto 
in  S.  Giovanni  e Paolo  in  Venice  (about  1530)  and  another  almost  contemporaneous 
one  by  Torbido  in  the  Academy  of  Vienna.  Previously  this  class  of  rugs  was  ascribed 
to  Morocco  on  the  basis  of  the  similarity  of  their  geometrical  pattern  to  the  mural 
decorations  of  many  Moorish  buildings  and  to  many  other  products  of  the  arts  and 
crafts  of  Western  Islam.  This  relationship  is  in  reality  rather  superficial  and  does 
not  give  sufficient  grounds  for  attributing  the  rugs  to  Morocco,  which  never  had 
an  art  of  its  own.  Furthermore,  in  the  16th  century  this  country  was  not  in  a 
condition  for  an  art  of  such  high  technical  and  decorative  development.  In  fact, 
Morocco  was  always  dependent  upon  Spain,  where  rugs  were  knotted  in  the  14th 
and  16th  centuries.  Such  rugs  were  also  geometrical  in  character,  but  entirely 
different  in  all  other  respects  and  there  are  still  fewer  analogies  in  the  wretched 
modern  examples  of  Moorish  knotting.  A second  theory  which  has  enjoyed  a certain 
popularity  among  dealers  would  without  any  logical  reason  establish  a parallel  between 
these  rugs  and  certain  Eastern  Nomad  rugs  and  would  defend  the  theory  of  their 
origin  in  the  region  of  Samarkand  with  arguments  which  are  not  even  worth  dis- 
cussing. 

The  frequent  appearance  of  Damascus  rugs  in  Italy  and  their  absence  in  Spain 
points  to  the  fact  that  they  originated  in  the  Levant.  As  the  Persian  origin  of  these 
rugs  is  obviously  impossible,  Asia  Minor,  Egypt  and  Syria  come  into  considera- 
tion. In  favor  of  the  latter  country  we  may  bring  forward  the  fact  that  these  rugs 
are  apparently  identical  with  the  highly  valued  “tappeti  damaschini”,  which  were 
frequently  noted  in  the  inventories  of  Venetian  families  in  the  16th  century  and 
were  especially  mentioned  as  table  covers.  For  this  reason  the  designation  “Damas- 
cus rugs"  has  gradually  come  into  favor.  This  hypothesis  has  at  any  rate  far  more 
probability  than  the  two  others  mentioned  above,  although  we  know  nothing  about 
a rug  industry  in  Syria.  But  Damascus  might  have  been  a trade  centre  for  rugs 
of  this  type.  F.  Sarro  has  recently  proposed  a new  solution  to  the  problem.  He 
thinks  an  Egyptian  origin  can  be  established  from  the  similarity  in  the  composition 
of  these  rugs  with  the  Cairo  book  bindings  and  from  the  fact,  mentioned  by  Turkish 
historians,  that  Egyptian  carpet  weavers  were  transferred  to  Constantinople.  This 
theory  is  also  supported  by  the  records  of  European  travelers  who  sometimes  mention 
rug  knotting  establishments  in  Cairo.  However,  we  are  not  quite  convinced  of  it. 
But  this  theory  has  also  the  advantage  that  it  takes  account  of  another  group  of 
rugs,  which  by  their  material,  technique  and  coloring  appear  clearly  to  be  a later 
phase  in  the  evolution  of  the  Damascus  rugs.  And  on  the  other  hand,  the  elements 
of  their  decoration  have  to  be  assigned  to  the  Turkish  Empire.  Indeed,  this  group 
shows  exactly  the  same,  partly  naturalistic,  partly  elaborately  conventionalized  floral 
decoration  which  is  characteristic  of  the  so-called  Damascus  and  Rhodos  faience 


56 


Bode-Kuhnel,  Antique  Rugs  from  the  near  east. 


of  the  16th— 17th  centuries.  These  were  all  probably  made  in  Nicaea  and 
not  partly  in  Damascus,  as  was  originally  supposed.  Therefore  the  rugs  related 
to  them  may  have  originated  in  Asia  Minor.  They  show  an  unmistakably  Persian 
influence,  as  does  all  Turkish  decorative  art  of  the  period.  However,  the  Persian 
influence  only  gave  the  impetus  toward  the  development  of  very  characteristic 
motives  of  their  own,  which  were  limited  to  strictly  floral  elements.  The  leaf  and 
flower  motives  of  this  new  style  are  particularly  luxuriant  in  several  prayer  rugs 
belonging  to  the  Austrian  Court,  to  Prince  Liechtenstein,  and  to  the  Berlin  and 
London  museums  of  decorative  art  (Fig.  90).  This  type  is  also  represented  by  several 
so-called  table  rugs  of  square  shape.  There  are  specimens  of  this  type  in  the  Vic- 
toria and  Albert  Museum;  one  is  represented  in  a painting  by  Boniface  Pitati  in  the 

Academy  of  Venice;  another  is  in  the  possession  of  Mr.  von  Dirksen  (Fig.  91).  In 
the  older  Damascus  pattern.  This  is  undeniable  proof  for  the  development  of  ore 
type  from  the  other.  (See  the  example  in  the  Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum).  As  a rule 
the  latter  ones  the  central  medallion  often  has  a geometrical  form,  in  the  style  of 

in  this  second  type  a yellowish  color  is  added  to  the  others,  which  retain  exactly 

their  old  shadings.  A change  in  the  color  scheme  only  appears  when  the  decora- 
tion becomes  broader,  less  coherent  and  less  unified.  The  use  of  the  cloud  motif 
in  the  shape  of  lightning  contributes  materially  to  this  effect.  This  motif,  already 
familiar  in  other  types  of  rugs,  is  now  used  in  more  vigorous  form  than  before.  At 
his  point  a rug  of  comparatively  subdued  design  and  coloring  in  the  Kaiser  Friedrich 
Museum  (Fig.  92),  forms  a transitional  type  to  the  rugs  with  exceedingly  vivid 
designs.  Among  the  latter,  particularly  beautiful  examples  may  be  mentioned  in  the 
London,  Paris,  Frankfort  and  Leipzig  Museums  of  Decorative  Art  (Fig.  93).  The 
collection  in  Cologne,  on  the  other  hand,  includes  an  example  in  which  there  is  a 
recurrence  of  the  type  of  composition  with  central  medallion  (in  this  instance 
showing  arabesque  palmettoes)  and  four  corner  motives.  The  rest  of  the  field  is 
covered  with  small  clouds  in  close  arrangement,  while  the  border  bears  beautiful, 
fully  opened  blossoms  and  vines  (Fig.  93). 

The  skilled  design  and  technical  finish  of  both  types  of  these  rugs  find  parallels 
only  in  the  Sefevi  period  of  Persia.  We  still  think  that  they  represent  examples  of 
a court  manufactory  of  the  Turkish  sultan.  This  manufactory  probably  lasted  from  the 
end  of  the  15th  until  the  middle  of  the  17th  century.  In  all  likelihood  it  was  in  Anatolia, 
not  far  from  Constantinople.  As  the  knotting  industry  was  never  really  established 
in  Syria  proper,  the  designation  “tappeti  Damaschini”  may  have  been  one  of  those 
inexactitudes  of  regular  occurrence  in  dealings  between  the  Orient  and  the  Occi- 
dent. The  fact  that  this  was  probably  a court  manufactory  offers  a most  feasible 
explanation  for  the  gross  contrast  between  these  rugs  and  the  other  rugs  of  Asia 
Minor  which  belong  decidedly  to  peasant  art.  It  also  explains  the  sudden  transition 
from  the  so-called  geometrical  kaleidoscopic  style  to  naturalistic  flower  motives.  Un- 
less a final  confirmation  is  found  for  Mr.  Sarre’s  theory  which  assumes  an  Egyptian 
phase,  succeeded  by  a later  evolution  in  Turkey. 

Several  prayer  rugs  which  are  dated  about  1 700  show  the  influence  of  the  last  exam- 
ples of  the  so-called  Damascus  pattern.  Theses  rug  are  chiefly  characterized  by  the  promi- 
nence of  the  niche,  which  is  usually  red.  Their  spirited  design  has  nothing  in  common 
with  the  severe  contours  of  the  Mihrab  rugs  of  the  Ushak  group,  and  the  border 
decoration,  in  particular,  is  reminiscent  of  the  “Damascus”  type.  Despite  these 
characteristics  this  class  begins  to  show  signs  of  decadence.  Examples  of  this  group 
are  in  the  Berlin  Museum  of  Decorative  Art  (Fig.  95),  the  Sarre  Collection,  etc.  The 
greater  number  of  the  prayer  rugs  made  in  Asia  Minor  since  the  middle  of  the 


The  So-called  Damascus-Rugs. 


57 


18th  century  have  arisen  from  this  last  stage  in  the  development  of  the  classical 
rug  style.  These  include  the  Giordes,  Kula,  Ladik  groups  etc.  each  of  which  con- 
tain many  varieties.  However,  their  decorative  motives  as  a whole  show  only 
degenerations  of  earlier  patterns,  arbitrarily  composed  and  mutilated. 

In  Asiatic  Turkey,  about  1600,  a hitherto  unknown  form  of  composition  was 
adopted.  This  took  the  form  of  a manifold,  so-called  family  prayer  rug,  produced 
by  means  of  a row  of  niches  covering  the  field,  one  of  the  few  earlier  examples 
is  in  the  National  Museum  in  Munich.  The  details  of  the  design  are  as  unin- 
spired as  this  new  pattern  itself.  They  are  dragged  together  from  all  possible  Per- 
sian, Indian  and  Turkish  models  and  then  arranged  with  doubtful  taste.  This  proves 
that  the  weakening  of  creative  imagination  and  the  appearance  of  eclectic  taste 
produced  the  decadence  of  the  industry. 


Concluding  remarks 


The  different  groups  of  rugs  which  have  been  classified  in  the  preceding  chapters, 
far  from  exhaust  the  stock  of  antique  examples  preserved.  Even  among  the 
known  originals  and  upon  the  reproductions  in  paintings  there  are  a number  of 
rugs  which  cannot  be  definitely  placed  in  any  of  the  categories  which  we  have 
established.  These  rugs  are  not  discussed,  since  they  have  very  few  typical  charac- 
teristics. Several,  even  among  the  earlier  examples,  show  the  decadence  of  a certain 
pattern;  others  are  occasional  departures  from  an  established  type.  A certain 
wavering  of  the  design  reveals  that  still  others  are  timid  compromises  between 
different  patterns.  A severe  adherence  to  the  aesthetic  principles  of  style  and  tech- 
nique are  general  characteristics  of  Oriental  rug  manufacture  until  its  complete  deca- 
dence in  the  middle  of  the  18th  century.  But  even  in  the  comparatively  short 
period  which  we  are  fairly  well  able  to  survey  there  was  transformation  after  trans- 
formation. Their  beginning  may  be  considered  as  a sympton  of  decadence. 

So  far  we  have  only  the  barest  evidence  for  a history  of  the  evolution  of  the 
different  patterns.  Today  we  still  lack  the  most  important  requirement  for  this 
history:  — a more  exact  knowledge  of  the  districts  in  which  the  different  groups 
of  rugs  were  manufactured.  Nor  can  this  knowledge  be  extensively  advanced  in 
the  future,  since  there  are  practically  no  specimens  preserved  in  the  place  of  their 
manufacture,  and  everything  which  might  yield  information  is  destroyed  hastily  and 
pitilessly  in  the  complete  demoralization  of  Near  Eastern  affairs.  Whatever  speci- 
mens are  occasionally  saved  for  the  European  market  go  through  the  hands  of 
speculators  who  are  often  more  concerned  with  obscuring  than  with  clarifying  the 
sources  from  which  they  draw  their  stock.  The  modern  rugs,  too,  furnish  practi- 
cally no  evidence,  although  their  exact  localization  is  frequently  possible.  And  even 
these  modern  specimens  cannot  always  be  placed,  despite  the  amazing  certitude 
with  which  every  dealer  unhesitatingly  classifies  every  rug.  For,  the  decline  of  the 
rug  industry  was  not  so  much  technical,  as  aesthetic,  and  produced  such  a deterio- 
ration and  mixture  of  patterns  that  rugs  now  recognized  as  characteristic  products 
of  this  or  that  province  are  seldom  entirely  an  outgrowth  of  old  traditions.  Indeed, 
frequently  such  patterns  are  not  a creation  of  the  people  at  all,  but  consist  of  mo- 
tives which  they  have  borrowed  and  then  unintelligently  developed  into  a more  or 
less  profitable  article  of  peasant  craft. 

F.  R.  Martin,  in  his  valuable  history  of  rugs,  attempted  to  establish  more  de- 
finitely the  localization  of  the  older  rugs,  and  especially  of  those  in  the  Persian 
group.  He  did  this  by  consulting  all  accessible  sources.  But  although  many  of  his 
hypotheses  may  be  clear  and  striking,  yet  as  a rule,  they  seldom  lead  to  valid 
conclusions,  and  in  many  cases  they  have  already  been  proved  erroneous.  For  this 
reason  we  must  be  content  for  the  moment  to  differentiate  only  the  larger  Near 


Bode-Kuhnel,  Antique  Rugs  from  the  near  east. 


59 


Eastern  groups.  If  we  wish  to  subdivide,  we  must  use  the  different  motives  of  the 
decoration  as  a basis.  A stylistic  and  historical  connection  then  results  automatically 
where  it  clearly  exists:  — for  instance,  the  relation  between  the  medallion  rugs 
with  animals  and  those  without  them,  or  the  connection  between  the  vase  rugs  and 
the  so-called  Armenian  patterns.  But  with  our  present  knowledge  we  could  not 
honestly  attempt  a distribution  of  the  different  types  of  animal  rugs  among  the 
other  classes  of  Persian  rugs. 

It  is  evident  that  our  survey  of  the  material  on  hand  was  necessarily  very 
general  and  limited.  As  a foundation  for  it  we  had  to  use  trustworthy  criteria  and 
the  reliable  dates  which  we  secured.  The  Sefevi  period  was,  of  course,  the  basis 
of  our  investigation,  because  it  is  only  period  which  we  know  fairly  well  from  the 
number  of  examples  preserved  and  from  the  evidence  at  hand  for  ascertaining  their 
origin.  The  Persian  rugs  of  this  period  are  imposing  and  beautiful  in  their  com- 
position, and  are  usually  characterized  by  their  decoration  with  floral  motives.  In 
their  design  and  composition  a thoroughly  realistic  perception  vies  with  a fine  instinct 
for  style.  The  animal  forms  and  also  the  occasional  human  figures  which  blend 
with  the  decoration  usually  appear  as  a subordinate  feature,  or  if  we  may  use  the 
expression,  as  a kind  of  insert  in  the  floral  decoration  of  the  field.  In  the  beginning 
of  this  period  the  design  and  its  execution  still  showed  an  almost  severe  strength 
and  occasionally  even  a certain  thinness  of  form.  But  about  the  middle  of  the 
16th  century  these  same  patterns  attain  a soft  abundance,  perfect  taste  in  com- 
position, rhythm  of  movement,  imaginative  conception  and  magnificent  coloring.  The 
intermingling  of  Chinese  motives  is  the  dominant  feature  of  this  prime  of  Oriental 
rug  manufacture.  These  Chinese  motives,  in  addition  to  other  elements  of  decoration, 
also  found  their  way  to  India,  where  at  the  same  period  the  technique  reached  a 
similar  climax.  With  the  decline  of  the  Sefevi  rule  in  the  17  th  century  the  Persian 
designs  began  to  be  simpler.  The  animal  figures  disappear  from  the  plant  decoration 
which  becomes  still  more  luxuriant,  although  harsher  in  color  and  coarser.  On 
Turkish  soil  near  Constantinople,  the  classical  Persian  decoration  seems  to  have 
gone  through  its  last  vigorous  and  individual  transformations.  This  was  in  the 
17th  century.  A little  later  it  was  more  and  more  misinterpreted  in  the  prayer 
rugs,  and  finally,  diluted  with  senseless  degenerations,  it  floods  the  entire  territory 
of  the  Near  East. 

In  the  15th  century,  in  the  northwestern  border  territory  of  Armenia  and  the 
Caucasus,  the  Persian  manufacture,  properly  speaking,  was  preceded  by  an  industry 
obviously  connected  with  the  former.  The  patterns  of  this  manufactory  show  a 
very  similar  form  of  composition,  and  they  also  have  floral  decoration  as  the  pre- 
dominating feature,  but  the  design  is  stiffer  and  tends  to  harden  into  geometrical 
formations.  If  we  trace  this  development  still  further  back,  the  forms  are  created 
in  an  entirely  different  spirit.  This  new  type  dates  from  about  the  14th  century 
and  is  found  most  frequently  in  reproductions  on  paintings.  The  representation  of 
animals  comes  to  the  fore;  in  fact,  they  form  the  dominant  motif  in  the  decoration. 
They  are  used  not  merely  to  enliven  an  elaborate  floral  decoration,  as  in  the  silk 
rugs  of  the  Sefevi.  Large  and  isolated,  they  become  the  leading  motif  of  the  com- 
position. They  stand  out,  either  singly  or  in  pairs,  against  the  strong,  plain  back- 
ground of  the  meagerly  framed  compartments  and  are  repeated  in  regular  rows. 
The  angular  conventionalized  design  of  the  figures  has  an  effect  similar  to  that  of 
heraldic  animals  and  it  is  evident  that  they  originally  had  a symbolic  or  religious 
meaning.  Such  rugs  can  be  traced  from  the  end  of  the  13th  until  the  beginning  of 
the  15th  century  and  we  can  state  with  comparative  certainty  that  they  originated 


60 


Concluding  remarks. 


in  Asia  Minor,  where  the  animal  designs  seem  to  have  followed  a geometrical 
linear  style  which  we  may  justly  regard  as  the  oldest  decorative  principle  in  the 
entire  knotting  technique.  The  earliest  authenticated  use  of  this  type  of  decoration 
in  combination  with  Cufic  writing  is  in  the  13th  century.  It  then  influenced  the 
floral  decoration  of  Asia  Minor.  Here  it  appears  most  prominently  in  the  so-called 
Holbein  rugs  of  the  15th — 17th  centuries,  in  which  the  plant  forms,  especially,  can  no 
longer  be  recognized.  It  is  shown  most  characteristically  in  the  kaleidoscopic  design 
of  the  so-called  Damascus  rugs,  and  least  in  the  Ushak  group.  The  latter  were  sufficiently 
guarded  against  the  threatening  conventionalization  by  their  connection  with  Persia. 

In  recent  years  early  rug  designs  have  been  copied  in  the  Orient,  some  as  a 
whole,  some  in  part.  Yet  both  types  of  these  reproductions  are  usually  superficial. 
The  early  originals  may  be  detected  by  their  general  appearance  and  by  the  finer 
knotting  and  more  beautiful  and  magnificent  coloring,  but  they  are  chiefly  distinguished 
by  a number  of  apparently  unimportant  details,  which  *in  the  modern  rugs  are  either 
entirely  lacking  or  unintelligently  rendered.  When  one  has  steeped  himself  [for  a 
time  in  the  classical  rug  designs  it  is  comparatively  easy  to  recognize  the  actual 
imitations  by  all  kinds  of  slight  mistakes  and  inconsistencies.  As  in  other  branches  of 
art,  the  modern  rugs  never  copy  a known  original  faithfully,  but  borrow  their  motives 
from  several  related  models,  and  in  so  doing  commit  errors  against  the  old  laws  of  style. 
In  the  following  summary  the  characteristics  of  the  designs  are  again  briefly  stated. 

The  Persian  rugs  from  the  Sefevi  period  are  the  most  easily  recognizable 
type.  For  instance  the  peculiar  Far  Eastern  motives  of  which  they  show  a larger 
or  smaller  number,  are  characteristic  of  them  alone  and  are  completely  lacking  in 
late  rugs.  These  motives  include  not  only  the  mythical  Chinese  creatures  — the 
phoenix,  the  Kylin  and  the  dragon,  combined  with  such  symbolical  animals  as  deerr 
cranes,  etc.  The  symbol  of  immortality,  the  Tschi,  is  also  very  frequent,  whereas 
the  emblem  of  Buddhism,  the  triple  globes  or  Tschintamani,  is  more  rarely  used. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  concerning  the  meaning  and  origin  of  the  Tschi,  which  in 
the  form  of  the  “cloud  band”  plays  such  an  . important  part  in  most  of  the  early 
rugs.  In  several  specimens  this  motif  is  quite  as  purely  conventionalized  and  diversely 
formed  as  in  contemporaneous  Chinese  art.  During  the  entire  16th,  and  even  in  the 
first  half  of  the  17  th  century,  not  only  rugs  of  the  most  diverse  types,  but  miniatures, 
faience,  bronzes  and  textiles  show  this  motif  in  the  most  varied  ornamental  trans- 
formations. The  prayer  rug  which  is  reproduced  in  color  shows  the  cloud  band  in 
particularly  beautiful  form  and  yet  with  a trace  of  early  austerity.  The  large  beautiful 
clouds  take  up  almost  the  entire  field.  We  find  similar  forms  in  early  monuments 
with  Far  Eastern  and  Islamic  influences,  and  they  are  especially  frequent  in  Italian 
textiles,  where  they  are  generally  surrounded  by  rays.  In  Italy  such  motives  may 
be  traced  back  to  the  14th  century.  The  characteristic  scroll  work  (consisting  of 
small  rolled  up  ribbons)  which  appears  so  frequently  in  different  types  of  rugs  from 
the  early  16th  century,  is  also  perhaps  due  to  the  stimulus  of  the  Chinese  decora- 
tive arts.  The  globe  motives  or  the  Tschintamani,  with  or  without  so  so-called 
lightning  is  far  rarer.  Like  the  Tschi,  this  motif  even  reached  Asia  Minor 
where  it  was  particularly  popular  in  the  later  groups  of  the  so-called  Damascus 
rugs  and  sometimes  appeared  in  very  decoratively  conventionalized  form.  It  is 
obviously  identical  with  a motif  which  is  frequently  the  main  design  in  various 
Oriental  textiles,  especially  those  of  the  14th  century.  This  consists  of  three  half 
moons  set  one  against  the  other,  with  small  spheres  in  the  openings,  the  whole 
repeated  between  flame  motives.  This  design  is  very  similar  to  the  coat  of  arms 
which  the  Strozzi  family  of  Florence  has  born  since  the  14th  century.  We  have 


Bode-Kuhnel,  Antique  Rugs  from  the  near  east. 


61 


already  mentioned  the  magnificent  silk  rug  of  the  Poldi  Pezzoli  Museum  in  Milan 
as  an  example  of  the  use  of  a Chinese  altar  with  a canopy-like  superstructure  in 
the  shape  of  a bat.  Thus  far,  this  is  the  only  authenticated  instance  of  its  use. 

In  this  period  the  purely  Persian  motives  are  as  individual  and  as  beautifully 
formed  as  the  Chinese  ones.  Such  rugs  show  a careful  balance  in  the  composition 
of  the  field  and  in  the  relation  between  the  various  elements  of  the  pattern,  and 
every  motif  reveals  a fine  sense  of  style  and  is  developed  in  the  most  manifold 
ways.  When  discussing  several  of  the  most  magnificent  specimens,  we  pointed  out 
the  great  variety  of  animals,  quadrupeds,  as  well  as  birds  which  all  belong  to  the 
Persian  fauna  and  are  so  skillfully  reproduced  that  they  reveal  an  exact  study  of 
nature.  Combined  with  these  animals,  we  find  masks  of  lions  and  panthers  and 
sometimes  of  jackals.  They  are  a favorite  motif  of  the  early  16th  century. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  artists  seem  to  have  hesitated  to  use  human  figures. 
Indeed,  it  is  only  in  the  hunting  rugs  that  they  play  a larger  role,  although  occasionally 
they  also  appear  in  other  silk  rugs  as  angels  or  genii  [in  true  Persian  form.  But 
in  the  latter  case  they  are  completely  subordinated  to  the  main  composition  from 
the  standpoint  of  decoration. 

The  striking  feature  of  all  these  rugs  is  their  floral  decoration  in  which  two 
main  forms  again  predominate.  These  are  the  fully  opened  palmetto  flower  and 
the  arabesque  leaf.  Both  are  often  designed  with  architectonic  severity;  both  are 
characteristic  ancient  symbols  from  the  Saracenic  stock  of  ornamentation.  The 
palmetto,  which  in  textiles  is  frequently  called  the  pomegranate,  seems  to  have 
originated  from  the  water  lily  or  lotus  flower.  Since  the  beginnings  of  art  this 
flower  was  native  to  the  Nile  and  Tigris  as  well  as  to  the  great  rivers  of  the  Far 
East  and  for  thousands  of  years  it  has  been  a vital  and  productive  motif  in  Asiatic 
design.  It  may  be  alternately  in  full  bloom  or  closed  like  a bud,  large  or  small, 
in  side  view  or  seen  from  above.  In  all  these  forms  this  flower  is  the  intrinsic 
basis  of  design  during  the  prime  of  Persian  art.  Small  flowers  of  different  kinds, 
usually  in  the  shape  of  stars,  are  combined  with  the  palmettoes  and  used  to  fill  in 
the  ground.  In  his  "Stilfragen”  Riegl  has  thoroughly  explained  the  origin  of  the 
arabesque  as  a creation  of  Mohammadan  art  from  the  undulated  vines  of  late  Roman 
art.  The  arabesque  gave  the  rug  knotter  a fine  opportunity  to  show  his  mastery 
of  design  in  the  most  elegant  linear  composition,  despite  all  technical  difficulties. 
The  arabesque  is  generally  used  in  the  border  as  a frame  on  either  side  of  the  fully 
opened  flowers.  Both  of  these  motives  are  frequently  found  in  the  center  field  in 
similar  arrangement. 

The  botanical  determination  of  the  flowers  or  shrubs  which  are  found  in  the 
earlier  rugs  in  combination  with  the  palmettoes,  is  difficult  or  entirely  impossible 
because  of  their  conventionalization.  The  smaller  blossoms  are  similar  to  those  of 
the  apple  or  almond  tree.  The  more  vigorously  conventionalized  flowers,  especially 
the  tulips,  carnations  and  hyacinths,  which  are  particulary  common  in  Turkish  prayer 
rugs  of  the  17th  century,  are  strikingly  similar  to  the  decoration  of  the  so-called 
Rhodos  faience  and  to  that  of  many  brocades  and  velvets  of  the  same  period. 
Therefore,  at  that  time  they  seem  to  have  been  a general  motif  in  the  decorative 
art  of  Asia  Minor.  We  may  recall  that  the  almost  complete  geometrical  conven- 
tionalization of  all  plant  motives  is  a characteristic  for  most  of  the  types  of  rugs 
from  this  territory.  This  goes  so  far  that  the  plants  are  scarcely  recognizable.  We 
have  only  one  example  of  such  an  evolution  in  Persia,  and  even  this  is  not  entirely 
authenticated.  This  is  the  pointed,  so-called  reciprocal  lily  pattern  which  was  used 
as  a border  motif,  especially  in  the  “Polish”  rugs. 


62 


Concluding  remarks. 


Only  a few  patterns  of  the  Sefevi  period  show  actual  inscriptions.  These 
almost  always  take  the  form  of  the  flowing  Persian  Talik  style.  The  vertical, 
rounded  Tsuluts  characters  appear  more  rarely,  while  the  archaic,  angular  Cufic  is 
practically  never  used. 

The  modern  products,  if  they  have  any  originality,  no  longer  show  any  trace 
of  Chinese  motives,  while  the  purely  Persian  or  general  Mohammadan  motives,  if 
used  at  all,  are  only  a misinterpretation  of  the  past.  That  is  all  that  remains  of 
the  varied  elements  which  appeared  so  numerously  and  in  rhythmic  balance  in 

the  rugs  of  the  16th  and  17th  centuries.  For  this  reason,  it  is  not  difficult  to 

distinguish  rugs  from  the  prime  of  the  Persian  knotting  art  with  animal  and  plant 
decoration,  from  the  so-called  Armenian  reproductions  from  the  period  around 
the  year  1700,  which  show  these  motives  in  the  first  stages  of  decadence,  and  yet 

in  rather  successful  unity  of  composition.  With  the  progress  of  time  the  signs  of 

decadence  naturally  became  more  evident. 

This  is  not  true  of  the  older  types  of  rugs  the  designs  of  which  are  based  on 
Interlaced  ribbons  and  other  geometrical  features.  This  type  of  decoration  is  most  suited 
io  knotting  technique.  It  therefore  appears  in  all  periods  and  its  simple  motives 
afford  no  grip  for  critical  methods.  Furthermore,  these  patterns  have  been  imitated 
more  or  less  faithfully  in  modern  times,  not  only  in  places  where  European  merchants 
ordered  copies  of  old  models  but  also  in  regions  where  ancient  traditions  had 
been  actually  preserved  in  their  purity  and  had  not  come  in  contact  with  other 
spheres  of  artistic  production.  Such  modern  rugs  therefore  show  very  characteristic 
signs  of  the  earlier  periods:  — interlaced  and  rolled  motives,  hook-like  ornaments, 
hexagonal  or  octagonal  fields  with  staff-like  motives,  battlement-like  decoration  in 
the  borders,  letter  forms,  etc.  Despite  their  separation  in  time,  the  ornaments  from 
both  the  recent  and  early  rugs  are  quite  frequently  identical.  Even  the  knotting  is 
the  same,  as  the  older  examples  show  a rather  loose,  careless  technique,  similar  to 
that  in  the  better  Nomad  rugs.  The  arrangement  of  the  single  motives,  the  relation 
of  the  center  field  to  the  border  or  other  criteria  of  style,  are  also  of  no  avail,  as 
in  this  respect,  the  early  period  too  is  arbitrary.  This  is  shown  by  the  fact  that 
the  borders  are  sometims  very  small,  while  in  other  cases  they  are  very  wide  or 
appear  in  double  or  triple  number.  In  such  cases  one  may  best  avoid  error  by 
keeping  the  colors  of  the  classic  rugs  as  a standard  of  judgment.  The  old  spe- 
cimens appear  in  such  pure  and  harmonious  shadings  that  their  contrast  with  all 
later  rugs  (to  say  nothing  of  those  with  aniline  dyes),  is  sufficiently  striking  evi- 
dence for  anyone  who  has  once  felt  the  coloristic  beauty  which  characterizes, 
above  all  else,  the  primitive  rugs  of  the  East. 


Notes  by  the  Translator. 

Note  1 (Page  13):  At  the  present  dag  the  most  important  collections  of  rugs  in  the  United 
States  are  those  of  the  Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art  in  New  York,  including  the  former  Alt- 
man and  Fletcher  Collections,  the  Museum  of  Fine  Arts  in  Boston  and  the  Museum  of  Art  in 
Cleveland.  Among  private  collections  we  may  mention  those  of  James  F.  Ballard  of  St.  Louis, 
the  late  Henrg  C.  Frick  of  Pittsburg,  James  Deering  of  Miami,  Fla.,  John  D.  Mcllhenny  of 
Philadelphia,  George  Hewitt  Myers  of  Washington,  D.  C.,  Mrs.  Herbert  L.  Pratt  of  Brooklyn, 
Dr.  Denman  Ross  of  Cambridge,  P.  M.  Sharpies  of  Westchester,  Pa.,  P.  A.  B.  Widener  of 
Philadelphia  and  Senator  Clark  of  New  York.  The  important  collection  of  the  late  Mrs.  Phoebe 
A.  Hearst  is  now  in  the  San  Francisco  Museum,  while  that  of  the  Theodore  M.  Davis  Estate 
is  in  the  Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art  in  New  York. 

Note  2 (Page  14):  For  descriptions  of  the  knotting  technique  American  readers  may  con- 
sult the  handbook  of  Walter  A.  Hawley,  “Oriental  Rugs,  Antique  and  Modern”,  and  that  of 
G.  Griffin  Lewis,  “A  Practical  Book  of  Oriental  Rugs”. 

Note  3 (Page  14):  As  far  as  our  knowledge  goes,  the  woolen  thread  which  is  to  form 
the  pile,  is  never  cut  in  short  pieces  which  are  inserted  between  the  warp  threads.  The 
knotted  thread  is  only  cut  from  the  hank  after  the  knotting  operation  is  finished. 

Note  4 (Page  15):  To  our  knowledge,  no  coats  of  arms  in  the  European  sense  are  used 
by  the  Chinese.  Dragons  as  well  as  phoenixes  are  extremely  frequent  symbolic  motives  in 
Chinese  art,  but  to  our  knowledge  no  representation  of  the  dragon  fighting  with  the  phoenix 
exists  in  Chinese  art.  This  composition  seems  to  be  an  absolutely  Near  Eastern  motif,  al- 
hough  its  components  are  shaped  after  Chinese  models.  Considering  this  Near  Eastern  origin 
of  the  composition,  we  might  perhaps  better  call  it  the  fight  of  the  simurg  and  the  dragon. 

Note  5 (Page  16):  This  rug  is  now  in  the  Musee  des  Arts  Decoratifs.  The  representations 
are  well  known  scenes  from  the  “Khamse”  of  Nizami.  The  scene  in  the  row  next  to  the 
border  represents  Khosrau  seeing  Shirin  bathing.  The  next  row  shows  hunters  on  horseback, 
which  may  or  may  not  be  an  illustration  of  one  of  the  numerous  hunting  scenes  of 
the  Persian  poet.  The  third  row  illustrates  two  scenes  of  Medjnun  and  Leila:  Leila 
traveling  on  a dromedary  to  visit  Medjnun  in  the  desert,  and  the  death  of  Medjnun 
in  the  arms  of  Leila.  The  fourth  row  again  shows  hunters  on  horseback.  The  rug 
is  cut  off  at  the  fifth  row.  This  row  represents  the  fight  of  the  phoenix  and  the  dragon.  The 
entire  phoenix  is  preserved,  but  we  see  only  the  head  of  the  dragon;  the  remainder  is  missing, 
it  is  possible  that  there  is  less  than  one  half  of  the  rug  preserved.  The  rug  may  have  con- 
tained ten  rows  of  representations,  the  missing  five  identical  to  the  preserved  ones,  but  facing 
in  opposite  directions.  This  rug  is  not  identical  with  another  rug  in  the  Maciet  Collection, 
now  also  in  the  Musee  des  Arts  Decoratifs  in  Paris,  of  which  the  other  half  is  in  the  Cathe- 
dral of  Cracow.  (The  latter  reproduced  in  Martin,  “Oriental  Carpets”.) 

Note  6 (Page  16):  This  rug,  which  was  No.  221  of  the  Yerkes  Collection,  was  bought 
by  J.  B.  Trevor  at  the  sale. 

Note  7 (Page  18):  This  rug  was  No.  218  of  the  Yerkes  Collection.  We  were  not  able  to 
ascertain  its  present  owner. 

Note  8 (Page  19):  The  Altman  Collection  in  the  Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art  in  New 
York  contains  a silk  rug,  the  border  of  which  is  identical  with  the  Berlin  rug.  However,  the 
center  field  is  identical  with  that  of  the  silk  rug  formerly  in  the  Aynard  Collection  and  now 
belonging  to  D.  K.  Kelekian,  New  York.  (See  R.  M.  Riefstahl  “Three  Silk  Rugs  in  the  Alt- 
man Collection",  Art  in  America,  Vol.  IV,  pages  147—161). 

Note  9 (Page  19):  This  rug  now  belongs  to  Mr.  Kelekian,  New  York. 


64 


Bode-Kuhnel,  Antique  Rugs  from  the  near  east. 


Note  10  (Page  19):  The  rug  formerly  in  the  Yerkes  Collection  has  been  bequested  to  the 
Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art  by  Isaac  D.  Fletcher  (reproduced  in  Martin,  Fig.  127  and  in  the 
Yerkes  Catalogue  No  206;  Metropolitan  photo  No  36658).  The  mate  of  this  rug  passed  from 
the  collection  of  Stefano  Bardini  into  the  hands  of  Alexander  Smith  Cochran  who  in  1908 
gave  it  to  the  Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art.  (Reproduced  in  “Early  Oriental  Rugs",  Exhibition 
of  the  Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art,  1910—11,  No  32;  Metropolitan  photo  No  3504.)  The  rug 
in  Lyons  seems  to  be  identical  with  the  two  Metropolitan  rugs.  This  is  the  first  case  known 
to  the  translator  in  which  an  important  animal  rug  has  been  preserved  in  three  identical 
examples. 

Note  11  (Page  20):  There  are  two  rugs  of  this  type,  one  in  the  Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum  in 
Berlin,  of  which  the  corner  pieces  are  cut  off,  the  other  now  in  the  collection  of  Mr.  Clarence 
H.  Mackay,  New  York,  and  formerly  in  the  collection  of  Mr.  Marsden  J.  Perry  in  Providence, 
R.  I.  There  is  no  rug  of  this  type  in  Windsor  Castle,  but  the  present  rug  was  used  in  the 
coronation  ceremonies  of  Edward  VII  in  Westminster  Abbey,  having  been  borrowed  from  a 
former  British  owner  by  his  Majesty’s  Office  of  Works.  Mr.  A.  F. Kendrick  of  the  Victoria  and 
Albert  Museum  in  London  was  kind  enough  to  give  this  information  and  to  confirm  to  the 
translator  that  there  is  no  rug  of  this  type  in  Windsor  Castle,  and  that  it  is  the  custom  to 
obtain  tapestries,  carpets  and  draperies  of  all  kinds  from  all  possible  sources  for  coronation 
ceremonies  in  Westminster.  The  rug  belonging  to  Mr.  Mackay  is  complete  and  will  soon  be 
the  subject  of  a special  publication  by  the  translator.  This  rug  shows  the  motif  under  dis- 
cussion in  complete  form.  There  is  one  angel  standing,  the  other  flying  up  and  holding  a 
bottle  with  a tall  neck.  Certain  details  of  the  design  show  Chinese  influence,  but  on  the  whole 
these  figures  are  not  more  Chinese  than  the  numerous  representations  of  angels  in  black  and 
white  Persian  or  Turkestan  brush  drawings,  which  have  been  preserved  in  considerable  number. 
(See  specimens  in  F.  R.  Martin,  "Miniature  Painting”  and  Ph.  W.  Schultz,  “Miniaturmalerei”.) 

Note  12  (Page  22):  A mate  of  this  rug  is  in  the  Musee  des  Tissus  in  Lyons. 

Note  13  (Page  22):  See  Note  4. 

Note  14  (Page  26):  The  rug  formerly  in  the  Yerkes  Collection  is  now  in  that  of  J.  Selig- 
mann.  The  Altman  Collection  in  the  Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art  in  New  York  and  the 
Collection  of  Mr.  C.  F.  Williams  in  Norristown,  Pa.,  include  fine  specimens  of  this  group. 

Note  15  (Page  26):  Another  very  fine  rug  of  this  type  came  with  the  Altman  Collection 
into  the  Metropolitan’Museum  of  Art.  Particularly  interesting  is  the  half  of  a rug  of  the  same 
type  in  the  collection  of  Mr.  C.  F.  Williams  of  Norristown,  Pa.>  which  may  help  in  placing  this 
group  of  rugs.  The  miniature  figures  of  two  men  on  horseback,  the  one  seeming  to  be  the, 
prisoner  of  the  other,  are  inserted  in  the  middle  of  the  fine  spiral  and  floral  design.  The  abbre- 
viated design  of  these  figures  reminds  one  of  the  human  and  animal  figures  on  later  Cau- 
casian rugs. 

Note  16  (Page  26):  There  were  two  identical  rugs  in  the  mosque  of  Ardebil.  Both  were 
somewhat  damaged.  The  better  preserved  one  of  the  two,  was  repaired  with  pieces  from  the 
second  rug,  and  is  now  in  the  Victoria  and  Albert  Museum  in  London.  The  second  rug  was 
a good  deal  reduced  in  size  through  repair  and  damage  and  was  provided  with  a border 
taken  from  anoth’er  and  slightly  later  Persian  rug.  As  it  is,  this  second  rug  is  still  of  remarkable 
beauty.  It  passed  from  the  Yerkes  Collection  into  that  of  Captain  De  Lamar,  after  whose 
death  it  was  purchased  by  Duveen  Brothers. 

Note  17  (Page  28):  Two  very  fine  prayer  rugs  of  this  type  are  now  in  the  Metropolitan 
Museum  in  New  York.  One  of  them  formerly  belonged  to  Bardini  in  Florence.  (See  Martin 
“Oriental  Carpets”,  Fig.  203.)  The  other  passed  from  the  Kelekian  Collection  into  that  of 
Isaac  D.  Fletcher  who  gave  it  as  bequest  to  the  Metropolitan  Museum. 

Note  18  (Page  29):  One  of  these  rugs  is  now  in  the  James  F.  Ballard  Collection  in 
St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Note  19  (Page  30):  The  rugs  of  the  Theodore  M.  Davis  Estate  are  now  on  exhibition  at 
the  Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art  in  New  York,  among  them  the  garden  rug. 

Note  20  (Page  31):  The  translator  calls  these  rugs  “Polish  rugs  ”,  not  “Polonaise  rugs”. 
“Polonaise”  is  an  American  mispronunciation  of  the  French  word  “Polonais”  in  “tapis  polonais”, 
which  means  in  plain  English  “Polish  rugs  ”. 


Notes  by  the  Translator. 


65 


Note  21  (Page  32):  The  most  important  collection  of  Polish  rugs  is  now  that  of  Senator 
Clark  of  New  York.  Fine  specimens  are  in  the  Metropolitan  Museum  in  New  York  and  in  the 
Museum  of  Fine  Arts  in  Boston. 

Note  22  (Page  32):  Mr.  A.  F.  Kendrick  is  kind  enough  to  inform  the  translator  that  there 
is  no  Polish  rug  with  a coat  of  arms  in  the  Victoria  and  Albert  Museum.  The  silk  rug 
formerly  in  the  Salting  Collection  (Catalogue  No  678,  Vienna  Oriental  Carpets,  Plate  96),  con- 
tains two  central  motives  which  look  like  coats  of  arms,  but  which  are  not.  The  Mobilier 
National  of  the  French  Republic  possesses  a very  large  silk  rug  with  a coat  of  arms  in  the 
center.  The  translator  was  not  able  to  identify  this  coat  of  arms,  even  with  competent 
heraldic  assistance. 

Note  23  (Page  33):  There  is  no  Persian  miniature  painting  known  to  the  translator  in 
which  tapestry  weaves  are  represented  as  wall  hangings.  On  the  other  hand,  woolen  tapestries 
(Kilims)  are  used  all  over  the  Near  East  as  floor  coverings,  particularly  in  summer.  There  are 
huge  Kilim  weaves  preserved  of  rectangular  size,  which  correspond  to  typical  sizes  of  Oriental 
floor  rugs,  but  which  would  not  be  suitable  for  wall  decorations  on  account  of  their  oblong 
shape.  All  kinds  of  fabrics,  brocades  and  embroideries  are,  and  have  been  used  as  floor  cover- 
ings in  the  Near  East,  as  the  miniature  paintings  prove. 

Note  24  (Page  34):  The  Metropolitan  Museum  has  no  rug  of  this  type.  There  is  an 
Armenian  rug  with  similar  lozenge  composition,  but  without  the  characteristic  corner  com- 
positions, and  of  entirely  different  weave. 

Note  25  (Page  35):  Another  fragment  of  the  same  rug  is  in  the  Kouchakji  Collection  in 
New  York. 

Note  26  (Page  36):  This  rug  was  No  202  of  the  Yerkes  Sale.  We  are  not  able  to  as- 
certain its  present  owner. 

Note  27  (Page  38):  See  Note  4. 

Note  28  (Page  38):  The  translator  does  not  know  what  became  of  the  Bardini  rugs.  He 
knows  four  rugs  of  this  type  in  the  United  States.  One  belongs  to  Mr.  James  F.  Ballard  in 
St.  Louis,  Mo.,  the  second  to  Mr.  C.  F.  Williams,  who  acquired  the  rug  from  a personal  friend; 
the  third  to  Mr.  John  D.  Me  Ilhenny  of  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  and  the  fourth  to  Mr.  P.  M.  Sharpies 
of  Westchester,  Pa.  The  two  last  mentioned  rugs  were  acquired  in  Constantinople,  as 
Mr.  Williams  was  kind  enough  to  inform  the  tranlator. 

Note  29  (Page  39):  There  are  two  fragments  of  the  primitive  rug,  one  in  the  Kaiser 
Friedrich  Museum  in  Berlin,  the  other  in  the  Joseph  Lees  Williams  Memorial  Collection  in  the 
Metropolitan  Museum  in  New  York.  Mr.  C.  F.  Williams  informs  the  translator  that  the  rug  of 
Mr.  M.  K.  W.  Vanderbilt  is  of  a later  date  and  so  is  the  rug  belonging  to  Mr.  Lamm  of 
Naesby,  Sweden,  which  was  exhibited  in  1910  in  Munich. 

Note  30  (Page  48):  Such  rugs  with  the  niche  design  on  both  ends  are  called  “hearth  rugs" 
or  “odjalik"  in  order  to  distinguish  them  from  the  “namazlik”  or  prayer  rugs. 

Note  31  (Page  54):  This  rug  passed  into  the  hand  of  the  antiquarian  Sangiorgi  in  Rome. 


' 

. 


.1 

. 


Fig.  1. 

Silk  Hunting  Rug  formerly  in  the  Possession  of  the  Austrian  Court. 


Bode-Kiihnel .^Vorderasiatisdie  Kntipfteppiche, 


5 


Fig.  2. 

Border  of  No  1. 


Fig.  3. 

Silk  Hunting  Rug  from  the  Collection  of  Baron  Maurice  de  Rothschild,  Paris, 


Fig.  4. 

Hunting  Rug  in  the  Musee  des  Arts  decoratifs,  Paris. 


Fig.  5. 

Animal  Rug  in  the  Poldi-Pezzoli  Museum,  Milan. 


Fig.  6. 

Rnimal  Rug  in  the  Stieglitz  Museum,  Petrograd. 


Fig.  7. 

Detail  of  No  6. 


Fig.  8. 

Animal  Rug  in  the  Musee  des  Arts  decoratifs,  Paris. 


Fig.  9. 

Silk  Animal  Rug  in  the  Museum  of  Decorative  Art,  Berlin 


Fig.  10. 

Silk  Rug  in  the  Musee  des  Rrts  decoratifs,  Paris. 


Fig.  11. 

Woollen  Animal  Rug  in  the  Collection  of  Count  Boucqoi,  Vienna. 


Fig.  12. 

Persian  Animal  Rug  in  Wool  in  the  Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum,  Berlin. 


Fig.  13. 

Woollen  Animal  Rug  in  the  Collection  of  Prince  Schwarzenberg,  Vienna. 


Fig.  14. 

Woollen  Animal  Rug  in  the  Victoria  and  Albert  Museum,  London 


Fig.  15. 

Section  of  No  14 


Fig.  16. 

Detail  from  No  14. 


Fig.  17. 

Detail  from  No  14. 


Bode-Kiihnel,  Vorderasiatische  Kniipfteppiche 


6 


Fig.  18. 

Woollen  Rug  with  Cartouche  Pattern  in  the  Metropolian  Museum,  New  York. 


Fig.  19. 

Wollen  Rug  with  Figures  and  Cartouch  Pattern  in  the  Collection  of  the  Duke  of  Buccleudi. 


Fig.  20. 

Woollen  Rug  with  Cartouche  Pattern  in  the  Collection  of  Countess  Clam-Gallas,  Vienna. 


Fig.  21. 

Woollen  Animal  Rug  in  the  Metropolitan  Museum,  New  York. 


Fig.  22. 

Persian  Animal  Rug  in  the  Austrian  Museum  for  Art  and  Industry,  Vienna. 


Fig.  23. 

Persian  Woollen  Rug  formerly  in  the  Collection  of  Charles  T.  Yerkes,  New  York. 


Fig.  24. 

Persian  Woollen  Rug  in  the  Collection  of  the  Manufacture  des  Gobelins,  Paris. 


Fig.  25. 

Persian  Woollen  Rug  with  Central  Medallion. 


Fig.  26. 

Persian  Woollen  Rug  from  flrdebil,  dated  1539,  in  the  Victoria  and  Albert  Museum,  London. 


Fig.  27. 

Detail  of  No  26. 


Fig.  28. 

Persian  Silk  Rug  in  the  Collection  of  the  Manufacture  des  Gobelins,  Paris. 


Fig.  29. 

Persian  Silk  Rug  in  the  Collection  of  Baron  Albert  de  Rothschild,  Vienna. 


Fig.  30. 

Persian  Woollen  Rug  in  the  Collection  of  Baron  H.  von  Tucher,  Munich. 


Fig.  31. 

Persian  Wollen  Rug  formerly  in  the  Collection  of  Dr.  von  Dirksen,  Berlin. 


Fig.  32. 

Persian  Woollen  Rug  in  the  Collection  of  Senator  Clark,  New  York. 


Fig.  33. 

So-called  Herat  Rug  in  the  Victoria  and  Albert  Museum,  London. 


Bode-Kiihnel,  Vorderasiatische  Kniipfteppiche. 


7 


Fig.  34. 

So-called  Vase  Rug  in  the  Austrian  Museum  for  Art  and  Industrie,  Vienna. 


Fig.  35. 

So-called  Vase  Rug  in  the  Imperial  Ottoman  Museum,  Constantinople. 


Fig.  36. 

So-called  Vase  Rug  in  the  Collection  of  Mr. 


W.  von  Ginzkey,  Vienna. 


Fig.  37. 

Persian  Woollen  Rug  with  Garden  Pattern  in  the  Collection  of  Dr.  Albert  Figdor,  Vienna. 


Fig.  38. 

So-called  Garden  Rug  in  the  Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum.  Berlin. 


Fig.  39. 

Rug  with  Tree  Pattern  in  the  Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum,  Berlin. 


Persian  Woollen 


Fig.  40. 

Persian  Woollen  Rug  with  Tree  Pattern  from  the  Collection  of  Mr.  C.  F.  Williams,  Norristown,  Pa. 


Fig.  41. 

So-called  Polish  Rug  with  Coat  of  Arms  in  the  National  Museum,  Munich. 


Fig.  42. 

So-called  Polish  Rug  in^Silk  formerly  in  the  Robinson  Collection,  London. 


Fig.  43. 

So-called  Polish  Rug  in  Silk,  from  the  Collection  of  Prince  Johann  Liechtenstein,  Vienna. 


Fig.  44. 

So  -called  Polish  Rug  in  Silk,  from  the  Collection  of  Prince  Johann  Liechtenstein,  Vienna. 


Fig.  45. 

So-called  Polish  Rug  in  Silk  in  the  Provincial  Museum,  Hannover. 


Fig.  46. 

So-called  Polish  Rug  in  Silk  in  the  Residence  Palace,  Munich 


Fig.  47. 

So-called  Polish  Tapestry  Carpet  in  the  Collection  of  Dr.  Figdor,  Vienna. 


So-called 


Fig.  48. 

Polish  Tapestry  Carpet  in  the  Kaiser  Friedridi  Museum,  Berlin. 


Fig.  49. 

Indian  Animal  Rug  formerly  in  the  Collection  of  M.  Jeuniette,  Paris. 


Bode-Kuhne! 


Vorderasiatische  Kniipfteppiche 


8 


Fig.  50. 

Indian  Woollen  Rug  in  the  Austrian  Museum  for  Art  and  Industry,  Vienna. 


Fig.  51. 

Indian  Wollen  Rug  in  the  Museum  of  Fine  Arts,  Boston. 


Fig.  52. 

Indian  Prayer  Rug  in  the  Austrian  Museum  for  Art  and  Industry,  Vienna. 


Fig.  53. 

Indian  Silk  Rug  in  the  Musee  des  Arts  decoratifs,  Paris. 


Fig.  54. 

Indian  Woollen  Rug  with  Floral  Decoration  in  the  Austrian  Museum  for  Art  and  Industry,  Vienna 


Fig.  55. 

So-called  Armenian  Animal  Rug  in  the  Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum,  Berlin 


Fig.  56. 

So-called  Armenian  Animal  Rug  in  the  Collection  of  Mr.  P.  M.  Sharpies,  Westchester,  Pa. 


Fig.  57. 

So-called  Armenian  Rug  in  Wool  in  the  Collection  of  Mr.  Williams,  Norristown,  Pa. 


Fig.  58. 

Late  Animal  Rug  in  the  Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum,  Berlin 


Fig.  59. 

Late  Garden  Rug  in  the  Collection  of  Mr.  Lamm,  Naesby,  Sweden. 


Fig.  60. 


Fig.  61. 


Fig.  62. 

Seljuk  Rugs  from  the  Mosque  Ala  ed-din,  Konia,  Asia  Minor. 


Fig.  63. 

Early  Woollen  Rug  with  Phoenix  and  Dragon  Pattern  in  the  Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum,  Berlin 


Fig.  65. 

Rug  in  the  „Betrothal  of  Mary"  bg  Nic.  di  Buonaccorso  in  the  National  Gallery,  London. 


Fig  66. 

Rug  from  a „Madonna“  by  Lippo  Memmi  in  the  Berlin  Gallery. 


Fig.  67. 

So-called  Ushak  Rug  formerly  in  the  Collection  of  Count  Gregor  Stroganoff. 


Fig.  68. 

So-called  Usliak  Rug  with  Star  Pattern  in  the  Collection  of  Dr.  Bode,  Berlin. 


(•Ui-O 


W . w VjBaa 

& ml  Ifera 


»^a&rca 

r./; *s  * f 


• ^V*ETa?ir^  < ‘ 

- 

" NxJ/*  V 

<*sv  V^-;j*i5  ' 


%pt^ 


Bode-Kiihnel,  Vorderasiatische  Kniipfteppiche. 


9 


Fig.  70. 

So-called  Ushak  Rug  in  the  Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum,  Berlin. 


Fig.  71. 

So-called  Ushak  Rug  in  the  Austrian  Museum  for  Art  and  Industry,  Vienna. 


Fig.  72. 

So-called  Ushak  Rug  in  the  Collection  of  Baron  H.  von  Tucher,  Munich. 


Fig.  73. 

So-called  Ushak  Rug  in  the  Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum,  Berlin. 


Fig.  74. 

Asia  Minor  Woollen  Rug  in  the  Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum,  Berlin, 


Fig.  75.  Fig.  77. 

Asia  Minor  Prayer  Rug  in  the  Collection  of  Baron  FI.  v.  Tucher,  Munich.  Asia  Minor  Prayer  Rug  in  the  Collection  of  Baron  H.  von  Tudier,  Munich. 


Fig.  76. 

Asia  Minor  Prayer  Rug  in  the  Hungarian  Museum  of  Decorative  Art,  Budapest. 


Fig.  78. 

Asia  Minor  Woollen  Rug  (with  white  ground)  in  the  Collection  of  Dr.  Bode,  Berlin. 


Fig.  79. 

Asia  Minor  Woollen  Rug  (with  white  ground)  in  the  Collection  of  Dr.  Bode,  Berlin. 


Fig.  82. 

Asia  Minor  Woollen  Rug  with  so-called  Holbein  Pattern  in  the  Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum,  Berlin. 


Fig.  83. 

Asia  Minor  Woollen  Rug  with  so-called  Holbein  Pattern  in  the  Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum,  Berlin. 


Fig.  84. 

Asia  Minor  Woollen  Rug  with  so-called  Holbein  Pattern  in  the  Collection  of  Dr.  Bode. 


#2 


Fig.  85. 

Asia  Minor  Woollen  Rug  with  so-called  Holbein  Pattern  in  the  Collection  of  Dr.  Bode,  Berlin. 


Fig.  86. 

Asia  Minor  Woollen  Rug  with  Geometrical  Pattern  in  the  Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum,  Berlin. 


% « & n $ 


0M^: 


■A'-1  $5+ 


liipfK 


jo  Itrii 


M£fgfSF 


lifeliM 


3S&&& 


gggfij v„ — 


is 


Fig.  87. 

So-called  Damascus  Rug  in  the  Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum,  Berlin. 


Fig.  88. 

So-called  Damascus  Rug  in  Silk  formely  in  the  Possession  of  the  Austrian  Court. 
Bode-Kiihnel,  Vorderasiatisdie  Kniipfteppidie.  ^ 


Fig.  89. 

So-called  Damascus  Rug  in  the  Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum,  Berlin. 


Fig.  90. 

Turkish  Prayer  Rug  in  the  Museum  of  Decorative  Art,  Berlin. 


Fig.  91. 

Turkish  Rug  from  the  Collection  of  Dr.  W.  von  Dirksen,  Berlin, 


Fig.  92. 

Turkish  Rug  in  the  Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum,  Berlin. 


Fig.  93. 

Turkish  Rug  in  the  Museum  of  Decorative  Art,  Leipzig. 


Fig.  94. 

Turkish  Rug  in  the  Museum  of  Decorative  Art,  Cologne. 


Fig.  95. 

Turkish  Prayer  Rug  in  the  Museum  of  Decorative  Art,  Berlin. 


G 2 1 0 e" 


GETTY  CENTER  LIBRARY 


NK  2808  B66  1922  ws 

Bode.  Wilhelm  von,  1 
Antique  rugs  from  the  Near  East  / 


MAII 


3 3125  00198  1964 


